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.

(Buzzfeed)   Marcus Bachmann can finally find happiness   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 374
    More: News, Marcus Bachmann, Minnesota Senate, Minnesota, Central Time, DFL, same-sex marriages, interracial marriages, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

31354 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2013 at 7:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-13 05:29:57 PM
I hope one goes green.

/+1
 
2013-05-13 05:30:25 PM
HAAAHAHAHAHAH
 
2013-05-13 05:32:34 PM
headline of the year material right here
 
2013-05-13 05:34:07 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
/oblig
 
2013-05-13 05:34:38 PM
Very proud to be a Minnesotan today. A lot of us were listening to the livestream on the Senate floor and there was a lot of derp flying around in there.
 
2013-05-13 05:35:45 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-13 05:36:17 PM

Raging Thespian: Very proud to be a Minnesotan today. A lot of us were listening to the livestream on the Senate floor and there was a lot of derp flying around in there.


For sure! My husband and I were listening the whole time and it is so wonderful to see that this has passed! I'm so happy! I can't wait to go to a gay wedding. I love glitter.
 
2013-05-13 05:36:27 PM
images2.layoutsparks.com
 
2013-05-13 05:51:26 PM

LlamaGirl: For sure! My husband and I were listening the whole time and it is so wonderful to see that this has passed! I'm so happy! I can't wait to go to a gay wedding. I love glitter.


Yeah, the only problem is the I'm going to have to buy, like, two dozen wedding gifts in the coming year. That shiat gets expensive, yo.
 
2013-05-13 05:55:03 PM
THIS ONE
 
2013-05-13 05:58:39 PM

Raging Thespian: LlamaGirl: For sure! My husband and I were listening the whole time and it is so wonderful to see that this has passed! I'm so happy! I can't wait to go to a gay wedding. I love glitter.

Yeah, the only problem is the I'm going to have to buy, like, two dozen wedding gifts in the coming year. That shiat gets expensive, yo.


And they have to be tasteful, so no getting those gifts at Wal-Mart. The homosexuals always have such nice things.
 
2013-05-13 06:02:43 PM
This one needs to go green.
 
2013-05-13 06:03:21 PM
Do they like hotdish? Is that an acceptable dish to bring to the reception?
 
2013-05-13 06:08:00 PM

Noctusxx: This one needs to go green.


Not green.. RAINBOW!
 
2013-05-13 06:28:55 PM
Corn dog futures soar on the news!
 
2013-05-13 06:41:14 PM
The only abomination about gay weddings in Minnesota would be the lutefisk served there...

/Illinois really needs to step up to the plate here...
 
2013-05-13 06:42:12 PM
thatsusanburke.com
 
2013-05-13 06:55:39 PM
It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.
 
2013-05-13 06:58:18 PM
+1 subby.
 
2013-05-13 07:16:12 PM
8080801


/if you do not know what that means, then you are a normal person
 
2013-05-13 07:40:00 PM
There is nothing about this headline that isn't full of win.
 
2013-05-13 07:55:46 PM
This thread is gay.
 
2013-05-13 07:56:25 PM
Ha!
 
2013-05-13 07:56:47 PM
Good.
Now they can all get back to Taking Care of Business.
 
2013-05-13 07:56:54 PM
This can only help the economy.
 
2013-05-13 07:57:24 PM
Has Crazy-eyes come out with an official statement yet?  Cause, seriously, I could go for some Conservative Tears right about now.
 
2013-05-13 07:58:00 PM
The imminent Michele Bachmann derp is going to be a sight to behold.
 
2013-05-13 07:58:04 PM
images.dangerousminds.net
 
2013-05-13 07:58:17 PM
So is Michelle Bachman going to leave the state now?  Inquiring minds want to know.
 
2013-05-13 07:58:26 PM
Oh this thread is going to be awesome.
 
2013-05-13 07:58:32 PM
Awesome headline and great day for Minny-soda
 
2013-05-13 07:58:32 PM
static.guim.co.uk 

RIP Bachman
 
2013-05-13 07:59:11 PM

Girl From The North Country: It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.


LOLWUT
 
2013-05-13 07:59:16 PM
"I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.
 
2013-05-13 07:59:24 PM
For a second I thought he might have killed himself, thankfully the headline was a little misleading and he didn't.
 
2013-05-13 07:59:36 PM
Oh you, subby.

I lol'd

images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-05-13 07:59:48 PM

hutchkc: So is Michelle Bachman going to leave the state now?  Inquiring minds want to know.


I'm sure she'll be leaving like Ted Nugent is busy dying.
 
2013-05-13 07:59:54 PM

Infernalist: Has Crazy-eyes come out with an official statement yet?  Cause, seriously, I could go for some Conservative Tears right about now.


Just wait. I'm sure Fark's resident independents will be here shortly.
 
2013-05-13 08:00:28 PM
imageshack.us
 
2013-05-13 08:00:34 PM

mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.


Which way did he vote?
 
2013-05-13 08:00:39 PM
Happiness is a hot sausage.
 
2013-05-13 08:00:54 PM
That'll do, subby. That'll do.

/Glitter and huge corndogs for everyone!
 
2013-05-13 08:00:58 PM
Poor Michelle, she spent a lot of time learning to work a corndog and all for naught.
 
2013-05-13 08:01:28 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: Good.
Now they can all get back to Taking Care of Business.


Bachmann-Palin Overdrive?

silencedmajority.blogs.com
 
2013-05-13 08:03:03 PM
Yay Minnesota!
 
2013-05-13 08:03:21 PM

vygramul: mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

Which way did he vote?


Yes.
 
2013-05-13 08:03:46 PM
And once again, Nate Silver is a wizard.

He put forward a model in 2009 for which year each state would no longer support banning gay marriage. For Minnesota? 2013.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 08:03:55 PM
Questioning the masculinity of anti-gay marriage folks is not a sensible way of supporting gay marriage.

Some people just want to yell at their opponents and don't give a flying fark about actually getting things done.
 
2013-05-13 08:04:10 PM
FTFA:The lead Republican supporter of the bill, Sen. Branden Petersen, spoke during the closing arguments about his reasons for working with Dibble on the bill.
"I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.


Put party politics aside and imagine all the good that can be done. This man is a hero.
 
2013-05-13 08:04:28 PM
With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.
 
2013-05-13 08:04:55 PM

King Something: 8080801

/if you do not know what that means, then you are a normal person


I DON'T WANT TO BE NORMAL!!!
 
2013-05-13 08:05:02 PM

CynicalLA: This can only help the economy.


Gay marriage is being propped up by the wedding planning and catering lobby!  I knew it!  They saw the threat to their bottom line due more and more heterosexuals refusing to get married.  Their plan almost went off without being noticed!
 
2013-05-13 08:05:13 PM

jvl: Questioning the masculinity of anti-gay marriage folks is not a sensible way of supporting gay marriage.

Some people just want to yell at their opponents and don't give a flying fark about actually getting things done.


And noticing startling trends is not necessarily a way to discredit a reasoned debate, either.
 
2013-05-13 08:05:15 PM

mpirooz: vygramul: mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

Which way did he vote?

Yes.


The majority of sane Republicans see the writing on the wall.  The right to marriage for gays is 'going' to be nation-wide one day very soon and the smart ones are jumping across the line in increasing numbers to support state efforts.

Although, I don't know Minnesota.  Is he likely to get primaried for his support of the law?
 
2013-05-13 08:05:27 PM
Groomsmen? I mean they were a couple almost ten years ago...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-13 08:05:41 PM
vygramul:Which way did he vote?

He was the lone Republican to vote in favor of same sex marriage.
 
2013-05-13 08:06:08 PM

vygramul: Infernalist: Has Crazy-eyes come out with an official statement yet?  Cause, seriously, I could go for some Conservative Tears right about now.

Just wait. I'm sure Fark's resident independents will be here shortly.


They're too busy celebrating their incipient nuptials   it will be nice for them to finally be able to live their lives free from the oppression they've imposed on themselves..
 
2013-05-13 08:07:04 PM
Sen. Dan Hall, later speaking against the bill, expressed his fears about the legislation, saying, "Next, I believe we will be forced to believe what we don't."

imokwiththis.jpg
 
2013-05-13 08:07:21 PM

jvl: Questioning the masculinity of anti-gay marriage folks is not a sensible way of supporting gay marriage.

Some people just want to yell at their opponents and don't give a flying fark about actually getting things done.


whynotboth.jpg
 
2013-05-13 08:07:27 PM

whidbey: Day_Old_Dutchie: Good.
Now they can all get back to Taking Care of Business.

Bachmann-Palin Overdrive?

[silencedmajority.blogs.com image 400x286]


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-13 08:07:30 PM
Really, subby? Kinda going with the low hanging fruit, aren't we?


Empty Matchbook: Groomsmen? I mean they were a couple almost ten years ago...

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 500x255]


First thing I thought of when JusticeandIndependence posted the superheroes kissing upthread.
 
2013-05-13 08:07:45 PM
good
 
2013-05-13 08:07:56 PM
Am I out of the loop... I thought the headline was a Bachmann divorce announcement.
 
2013-05-13 08:08:37 PM

jvl: Questioning the masculinity of anti-gay marriage folks is not a sensible way of supporting gay marriage.

Some people just want to yell at their opponents and don't give a flying fark about actually getting things done.


What rational justification exists to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage?
 
2013-05-13 08:09:03 PM
So, has Michele left the state yet? Has Marcus finally expressed his true feelings for Rick Perry? Will god soon smite the state in a vengeful fit of pique? Stay tuned next week!
 
2013-05-13 08:09:04 PM

Dimensio: jvl: Questioning the masculinity of anti-gay marriage folks is not a sensible way of supporting gay marriage.

Some people just want to yell at their opponents and don't give a flying fark about actually getting things done.

What rational justification exists to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage?


Jesus.
 
2013-05-13 08:09:47 PM

nmrsnr: And once again, Nate Silver is a wizard.

He put forward a model in 2009 for which year each state would no longer support banning gay marriage. For Minnesota? 2013.


....which, while cool, has little to do with the Minnesota legislature supporting legalization. Sad to see many states where it's still banned despite clear popular support (looking at you, California).

/nonetheless, good work Minnesota!
 
2013-05-13 08:10:03 PM

raatz01: Am I out of the loop... I thought the headline was a Bachmann divorce announcement.


I thought it was about him passing away.
 
2013-05-13 08:10:34 PM

Girl From The North Country: It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.


Minnesota is all about being nice and MYOB.  It wasn't a big issue.  Nice folks don't talk about that.  Then the fundies got all nuts and tried to push the issue on the ballot.  Yard signs up, preachers in a tizzy.  It all backfired in a huge way when the pro-gay marriage people successfully painted them as just mean and trying to run other people's business.
 
2013-05-13 08:10:53 PM

raatz01: Am I out of the loop... I thought the headline was a Bachmann divorce announcement.


www.amish-shah.com
 
2013-05-13 08:10:56 PM

Dimensio: jvl: Questioning the masculinity of anti-gay marriage folks is not a sensible way of supporting gay marriage.

Some people just want to yell at their opponents and don't give a flying fark about actually getting things done.

What rational justification exists to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage?


None, unless you believe homosexuals are criminals.
 
2013-05-13 08:11:15 PM

WhoIsWillo: vygramul:Which way did he vote?

He was the lone Republican to vote in favor of same sex marriage.


Any odds yet on when he gets primaried?

But seriously, good on him for voting the way he did. That took balls.
 
2013-05-13 08:11:21 PM
www.charlock.org
 
2013-05-13 08:11:35 PM

UsikFark: Happiness is a hot sausage.


img.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-13 08:11:45 PM

ramblinwreck: Girl From The North Country: It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.

LOLWUT


Yeah I don't really get your LOLWUT comment. Vote No on the amendment never reached 50% in the polls until about a week before the election
 
2013-05-13 08:12:26 PM

raatz01: Am I out of the loop... I thought the headline was a Bachmann divorce announcement.


I thought maybe she was dead.
 
2013-05-13 08:12:32 PM

ramblinwreck: Girl From The North Country: It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.

LOLWUT


? Couldn't spend 5 seconds Googling it? The constitutional amendment was narrowly defeated, 48-51 last November:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/minnesota-amendment-1-result s -2012_n_2050310.html
 
2013-05-13 08:13:16 PM
RIP Bachman Turner Overdrive.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-13 08:13:19 PM
So that means people in MN can marry 5-year-olds and horses and trees now, right?
 
2013-05-13 08:13:44 PM
Awesome.

In Illinois, SSM bill passed senate and is pending a vote in the house.  They're trying to get enough votes to pass it and I think they will this summer.
 
2013-05-13 08:13:48 PM
So ever since New York became an equal state, my personal laptop's wallpaper has been a picture of Niagara Falls illuminated with rainbow lights. Now I will get to replace it with an image of my own state.

 And i can't believe I get to be the one to post this for Minnesota!!!

i2.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-13 08:13:54 PM
"It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

What the hell is that passage suppose to mean? What the fark is up with the civil war and business? I think the derp train might have derailed.
 
2013-05-13 08:14:20 PM
I agree it's a big deal that gays can marry should they choose, I just don't think it's a big deal to have the right to an institution like marriage that has a 50% failure rate.

/Glass half empty guy
 
2013-05-13 08:14:33 PM

Walker: This thread is gay.


Those who've contributed to it are merely bistanders.
 
2013-05-13 08:14:42 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: Awesome.

In Illinois, SSM bill passed senate and is pending a vote in the house.  They're trying to get enough votes to pass it and I think they will this summer.


Why is it taking so long? The Minn. House just passed this last week!
 
2013-05-13 08:14:44 PM

radarlove: So that means people in MN can marry 5-year-olds and horses and trees now, right?


And more than one person at a time.
 
2013-05-13 08:15:31 PM

nmrsnr: And once again, Nate Silver is a wizard.

He put forward a model in 2009 for which year each state would no longer support banning gay marriage. For Minnesota? 2013.


Then he missed it by a year.
 
2013-05-13 08:15:44 PM
antidisestablishmentarianism:
Put party politics aside and imagine all the good that can be done. This man is a hero.

I wouldn't say he's a hero. The people that have worked hard their entire lives( the activists, writers, and so on) for gays to be treated as equals are heroes, not a politician seeing the tide and saying "yes". This goes for the Democratic ones as well.

They listened to their constituents, which is good but not heroic. It's sad that it's the nature of politics for it to be that way.
 
2013-05-13 08:16:16 PM

dukeblue219: ramblinwreck: Girl From The North Country: It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.

LOLWUT

? Couldn't spend 5 seconds Googling it? The constitutional amendment was narrowly defeated, 48-51 last November:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/minnesota-amendment-1-result s -2012_n_2050310.html


My mistake, mistook the context as state vs federal.
 
2013-05-13 08:16:16 PM

fusillade762: Really, subby? Kinda going with the low hanging fruit, aren't we?


Empty Matchbook: Groomsmen? I mean they were a couple almost ten years ago...

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 500x255]

First thing I thought of when JusticeandIndependence posted the superheroes kissing upthread.


Lol to your first statement.

/pretend I'm not on a phone and I just quoted that first bit.
 
2013-05-13 08:16:20 PM

Jesterling: [www.charlock.org image 850x680]


Cats care not one whit about getting married. This post only serves to show how insensitive you are to the feline agenda.
 
2013-05-13 08:16:26 PM

ramblinwreck: Girl From The North Country: It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.

LOLWUT


State level, not Fed.
 
2013-05-13 08:16:38 PM

Supes: nmrsnr: And once again, Nate Silver is a wizard.

He put forward a model in 2009 for which year each state would no longer support banning gay marriage. For Minnesota? 2013.

....which, while cool, has little to do with the Minnesota legislature supporting legalization. Sad to see many states where it's still banned despite clear popular support (looking at you, California).

/nonetheless, good work Minnesota!


That wasn't entirely our fault. The Mormons spent half the GDP of the state of Utah defeating our last attempt to make it legal, and they didn't have enough left to challenge Minnesota. You'll notice that since they "won" in California, other states have been toppling over like bowling pins, so maybe their cunning plan to subvert the Gay State wasn't as cunning as they thought.
 
2013-05-13 08:16:41 PM
"It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

Maybe I'm misreading that statement, but that statement implies to me that this asshole felt that businesses were hurt and children confused when Minnesota voted against slavery? Seriously?
 
2013-05-13 08:18:35 PM
Now that it is okay for members of the same sex to marry each other, how about fixing your economy, or sending a manned mission to Mars, or doing something that is actually important?
 
2013-05-13 08:18:38 PM
"It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

Oh man, he was just in a full derp lather wasn't he? Why not just mention the horrible effect it will have on puppies as well?
 
2013-05-13 08:18:51 PM

Paris1127: The only abomination about gay weddings in Minnesota would be the lutefisk served there...

/Illinois really needs to step up to the plate here...


Lutefisk would be an abomination at ANY wedding.
 
2013-05-13 08:18:51 PM
So, does this mean "I'm looking California but feeling Minnesota" has an entirely different meaning now?
 
2013-05-13 08:19:13 PM
I just want to know when I'll be able to marry my turtle. I have a really nice turtle.
 
2013-05-13 08:19:36 PM

Bender The Offender: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

What the hell is that passage suppose to mean? What the fark is up with the civil war and business? I think the derp train might have derailed.


It's really simple- when you allow two men or two women to marry each other, it destroys the cotton industry and makes the blacks all uppity and when there's no cotton and uppity blacks the economy collapses.

This confuses the fark out of children because it makes absolutely no sense and they haven't yet learned to turn that part of their brain off.

So please, kill all the gays.  It's to only way to stop the poor kiddies from getting flustered when they learn that everything we tell them is bullshiat.
 
2013-05-13 08:20:21 PM

FormlessOne: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

Maybe I'm misreading that statement, but that statement implies to me that this asshole felt that businesses were hurt and children confused when Minnesota voted against slavery? Seriously?


Seriously. And I too, chortled resplendently at that.
 
2013-05-13 08:21:33 PM

FormlessOne: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

Maybe I'm misreading that statement, but that statement implies to me that this asshole felt that businesses were hurt and children confused when Minnesota voted against slavery? Seriously?


Well, certain businesses were hurt when we outlawed slavery. And the meatpacking industry was hurt when we started requiring them to make sure workers didn't fall into the meat grinders. Even if it was true that letting gays marry would hurt businesses (and it's laughably false), it's utterly irrelevant.
 
2013-05-13 08:21:43 PM

Bender The Offender: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

What the hell is that passage suppose to mean? What the fark is up with the civil war and business? I think the derp train might have derailed.


I'm enjoying the assertion that the boundaries of civil rights should be set at what doesn't confuse children. That's pretty good.
 
2013-05-13 08:22:11 PM

radarlove: Bender The Offender: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

What the hell is that passage suppose to mean? What the fark is up with the civil war and business? I think the derp train might have derailed.

It's really simple- when you allow two men or two women to marry each other, it destroys the cotton industry and makes the blacks all uppity and when there's no cotton and uppity blacks the economy collapses.

This confuses the fark out of children because it makes absolutely no sense and they haven't yet learned to turn that part of their brain off.

So please, kill all the gays.  It's to only way to stop the poor kiddies from getting flustered when they learn that everything we tell them is bullshiat.


FINALLY! Someone explained the gay-marriage thing in a way that makes total nonsense!
 
2013-05-13 08:22:14 PM

Jesterling: [www.charlock.org image 850x680]


What the fark?  We have two male cats that are that color of tabby and black, that make the same pose, and we have the same bedsheets.  Our cats have different facial structures and we don't have that brown pillow, but I did a second take because I'm tired.  Wow.
 
2013-05-13 08:22:16 PM

real_headhoncho: Now that it is okay for members of the same sex to marry each other, how about fixing your economy, or sending a manned mission to Mars, or doing something that is actually important?


Uh oh.  I have a feeling this is going to bring the Internet Social Justice "Warriors" out.
 
2013-05-13 08:22:34 PM

xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.


I believe it's because he behaves in a manner seen as somewhat effeminate. Plus his wife seems to be the boss while he's the spouse trailing after her. Glenn Beck is crying frequently in public, many see that as girly. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is not girly. Perhaps even a robot. People often get the idea a man is gay if he's openly emotional or kind of theatrical. This is a bit silly because they forget macho hairy bear men exist.
 
2013-05-13 08:23:14 PM
I thought Bachmann had come out when I read this headline. Regardless, gg Minny.
 
2013-05-13 08:23:16 PM

skinink: I agree it's a big deal that gays can marry should they choose, I just don't think it's a big deal to have the right to an institution like marriage that has a 50% failure rate.

/Glass half empty guy


And every divorce lawyer in Minnesota will be buying a new house, new car, or a boat in the next year.
Why do conservatives hate legislation that stimulates the economy and creates jobs.
 
2013-05-13 08:23:19 PM

cptjeff: FormlessOne: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

Maybe I'm misreading that statement, but that statement implies to me that this asshole felt that businesses were hurt and children confused when Minnesota voted against slavery? Seriously?

Well, certain businesses were hurt when we outlawed slavery. And the meatpacking industry was hurt when we started requiring them to make sure workers didn't fall into the meat grinders. Even if it was true that letting gays marry would hurt businesses (and it's laughably false), it's utterly irrelevant.


I would think gay marriage will help the meatpacking industry.
 
2013-05-13 08:23:46 PM
The anti-gay movement is populated by two kinds of people - women who fear abandonment and resentful closeted gay men. Michele's worst fear may finally come true.
 
2013-05-13 08:23:59 PM
I don't think he's that excited about this.  I'm guessing that he prefers the danger and excitement of giving blow jobs in the public restrooms at Como park a lot more then the idea of a stable, monogamous, relationship.
 
2013-05-13 08:24:05 PM

morlinge: I just want to know when I'll be able to marry my turtle. I have a really nice turtle.


Sad to say it looks like both you and I will be living in sin with our turtles for a while longer.  If you believe some people it's only a matter of weeks before turtle love is allowed officially.
 
2013-05-13 08:24:12 PM

MFAWG: radarlove: So that means people in MN can marry 5-year-olds and horses and trees now, right?

And more than one person at a time.


Does that mean just multiple humans specifically, or can I mix it up with animal, vegetable, and mineral?

/had my eye on a really sexy piece of bismuth lately
 
2013-05-13 08:24:34 PM

God-is-a-Taco: antidisestablishmentarianism:
Put party politics aside and imagine all the good that can be done. This man is a hero.

I wouldn't say he's a hero. The people that have worked hard their entire lives( the activists, writers, and so on) for gays to be treated as equals are heroes, not a politician seeing the tide and saying "yes". This goes for the Democratic ones as well.

They listened to their constituents, which is good but not heroic. It's sad that it's the nature of politics for it to be that way.


You make a good point. The sad thing is he will probably be challenged in the primaries by a hard right candidate. The time has come for equal marriage among many other things but there are still people clinging to religion to dictate their lives.
 
2013-05-13 08:24:48 PM
It's like I'm invisible.
 
2013-05-13 08:25:01 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: [thatsusanburke.com image 400x480]


...is that Paul Krugman?
 
2013-05-13 08:25:06 PM

real_headhoncho: Now that it is okay for members of the same sex to marry each other, how about fixing your economy, or sending a manned mission to Mars, or doing something that is actually important?


This.

You hurtin' anybody?  You hurtin' yourself?  No?  Then who the fark cares.
 
2013-05-13 08:25:10 PM

TheSelphie: Jesterling: [www.charlock.org image 850x680]

What the fark?  We have two male cats that are that color of tabby and black, that make the same pose, and we have the same bedsheets.  Our cats have different facial structures and we don't have that brown pillow, but I did a second take because I'm tired.  Wow.


Everybody has those sheets. They were on sale for a long time. And all cats do that.
 
2013-05-13 08:26:00 PM
Still impatiently waiting for Crazy-eyes' statement.  It has the potential of being truly glorious in its derp purity and the intensity of its impotent rage.
 
2013-05-13 08:26:27 PM

flux: Bender The Offender: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

What the hell is that passage suppose to mean? What the fark is up with the civil war and business? I think the derp train might have derailed.

I'm enjoying the assertion that the boundaries of civil rights should be set at what doesn't confuse children. That's pretty good.


Next up:  Banning putting your hands over your face.
 
2013-05-13 08:26:56 PM
I don't get it - I thought Marcus was already married to a man.

/so confused
 
2013-05-13 08:27:21 PM

FunkOut: xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I believe it's because he behaves in a manner seen as somewhat effeminate. Plus his wife seems to be the boss while he's the spouse trailing after her. Glenn Beck is crying frequently in public, many see that as girly. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is not girly. Perhaps even a robot. People often get the idea a man is gay if he's openly emotional or kind of theatrical. This is a bit silly because they forget macho hairy bear men exist.


He also runs a pray the gay away therapy thing, and we all know how well that works. It's a bunch of men in a small, rented room, with no windows, in folding chairs that are easily brushed aside in favor of a lush, carpeted floor, desperately pretending and brainwashing themselves into thinking that the force of prayer can chase away their lust for other men... Seriously, the odds of Marcus Bachmann being anything other than gay are infinitesimal. If not for the jesusderp, he'd be wearing a feather boa and heels.
 
2013-05-13 08:27:31 PM

flux: Bender The Offender: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

What the hell is that passage suppose to mean? What the fark is up with the civil war and business? I think the derp train might have derailed.

I'm enjoying the assertion that the boundaries of civil rights should be set at what doesn't confuse children. That's pretty good.


So we get to ban long division?
 
2013-05-13 08:28:47 PM
So, when is Michelle resigning and leaving forever?

a. cold day in hell
b. when God reveals it unto her
c. never
d. reply hazy, ask again later
 
2013-05-13 08:29:08 PM

mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.


Because all Republicans mindless robots who are only programmed to obey directives from their party leaders and have no will of their own, amirite?
 
2013-05-13 08:29:56 PM

Amidala: cptjeff: FormlessOne: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

Maybe I'm misreading that statement, but that statement implies to me that this asshole felt that businesses were hurt and children confused when Minnesota voted against slavery? Seriously?

Well, certain businesses were hurt when we outlawed slavery. And the meatpacking industry was hurt when we started requiring them to make sure workers didn't fall into the meat grinders. Even if it was true that letting gays marry would hurt businesses (and it's laughably false), it's utterly irrelevant.

I would think gay marriage will help the fudgemeatpacking industry.

 
2013-05-13 08:30:07 PM

real_headhoncho: Now that it is okay for members of the same sex to marry each other, how about fixing your economy, or sending a manned mission to Mars, or doing something that is actually important?


Most if not all the money poured into this was fighting it. If you Republicans cared so much, maybe you could have just let the inevitable happen and go create some jobs instead. Nope, had to pour millions into sticking your nose in other people's business and legislating the bedroom.
 
2013-05-13 08:30:19 PM
So when's the first episode of gay divorce court?
 
2013-05-13 08:30:21 PM

aerojockey: mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

Because all Republicans mindless robots who are only programmed to obey directives from their party leaders and have no will of their own, amirite?


Well, not 'all' Republicans.

just most.
 
2013-05-13 08:30:31 PM

ramblinwreck: real_headhoncho: Now that it is okay for members of the same sex to marry each other, how about fixing your economy, or sending a manned mission to Mars, or doing something that is actually important?

Uh oh.  I have a feeling this is going to bring the Internet Social Justice "Warriors" out.


Why?

I mean, yes, awesome.  Truly is.  The sad is that such a big deal was made over it in the first place.  We truly have better things to worry about than stopping adults from getting married.  The gay marriage issue SHOULD be a non-issue and IMO was only herped and derped up as a form of filibustering - waste time with trying to ban it rather than worrying about real issues.

The funny is that, as pointed out above, the vocal minority got everyone else to say "You know what?  Fine.  We'll have a vote, and oh look, we're offically allowing it.  Can we please move on now?"
 
2013-05-13 08:31:14 PM
This is my senator's reason behind voting against the measure.

If you want limited government, Hann explains, you need "moral virtue" and "discipline" and other verities that "reinforce the idea of individuals being accountable."
It's Hann's view that marriage is fundamental to these verities.

The cognitive dissonance makes my head spin
 
jvl
2013-05-13 08:31:22 PM

Dimensio: What rational justification exists to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage?


In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.
 
2013-05-13 08:31:41 PM

Gyrfalcon: radarlove: Bender The Offender: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

What the hell is that passage suppose to mean? What the fark is up with the civil war and business? I think the derp train might have derailed.

It's really simple- when you allow two men or two women to marry each other, it destroys the cotton industry and makes the blacks all uppity and when there's no cotton and uppity blacks the economy collapses.

This confuses the fark out of children because it makes absolutely no sense and they haven't yet learned to turn that part of their brain off.

So please, kill all the gays.  It's to only way to stop the poor kiddies from getting flustered when they learn that everything we tell them is bullshiat.

FINALLY! Someone explained the gay-marriage thing in a way that makes total nonsense!


Actually, there's a nugget of truth in there re: confusing children.  I think that statement actually reflects that they're afraid that if kids see what bullshiat all of their anti-gay rhetoric is, they'll begins asking themselves what else they've been lied to about.

Pot?
The merits of social welfare?
Unions and regulation?
Unquestionably obeying authority?
9/11?
God?
 
2013-05-13 08:32:49 PM

aerojockey: mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

Because all Republicans mindless robots who are only programmed to obey directives from their party leaders and have no will of their own, amirite?


No, but there's a reason why it seems shocking nowadays.
 
2013-05-13 08:33:07 PM

flux: Bender The Offender: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

What the hell is that passage suppose to mean? What the fark is up with the civil war and business? I think the derp train might have derailed.

I'm enjoying the assertion that the boundaries of civil rights should be set at what doesn't confuse children. That's pretty good.


Actually, if my kids are representative, this would lead to a pretty cool place to live.

My 8-year-old has a friend with two mommies. You know what his question was? His great confusion on that issue? "Who grills?"

Kids get it a lot easier than adults.

Rock on, Minnesota. Hope Kluwe's proud to have been a Viking.
 
2013-05-13 08:33:54 PM

aerojockey: mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

Because all Republicans mindless robots who are only programmed to obey directives from their party leaders and have no will of their own, amirite?


www.charlock.org
 
2013-05-13 08:34:15 PM
aerojockey:
Because all Republicans mindless robots who are only programmed to obey directives from their party leaders and have no will of their own, amirite?

I took that remark as meaning that he's worried about the RINO label and the kiss of death that goes along with it.
Needless to say, there is precedent for any Republican doing something rational and getting replaced by a batshiat insane Tea Party-approved ape.
 
2013-05-13 08:34:52 PM

jvl: Dimensio: What rational justification exists to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.


Care to enlighten us?
 
jvl
2013-05-13 08:34:53 PM

Jekylman: jvl: Some people just want to yell at their opponents and don't give a flying fark about actually getting things done.

whynotboth.jpg


The goal here is to legalize what we believe is right. If you want to do something about it, you need to convince about 5% more people that it is the right thing. When convincing people of a position, it is best to avoid prefacing your rhetoric with "as any moron can see, X is right" because you are calling the listener who disagrees with you a moron. Even assuming they are, in fact, morons, you are not helping.

So not both. You can either scream at your opponents or you can choose to try to convince them and actually get the thing done.
 
2013-05-13 08:35:16 PM

jvl: Dimensio: What rational justification exists to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.


I have frequently observed that individuals who are unable to present any rational justification for their position will, rather than admit their inability, instead attempt to justify their refusal to present any rational argument by claiming that no reasoned argument will be accepted by their opponents. In addition to same-sex marriage opponents, such a rhetorical tactic has been employed by creationists and by opponents of concealed weapons permit systems.

Rather than actually serve as a convincing response, however, such an attempt to justify refusing to provide an answer is intellectually dishonest.
 
2013-05-13 08:35:37 PM

Voiceofreason01: headline of the year material right here



Came to say that.

Agreed x 1000.
 
2013-05-13 08:36:05 PM

Girl From The North Country: This is my senator's reason behind voting against the measure.

If you want limited government, Hann explains, you need "moral virtue" and "discipline" and other verities that "reinforce the idea of individuals being accountable."
It's Hann's view that marriage is fundamental to these verities.

The cognitive dissonance makes my head spin


The only way to keep government out of your life is government certification of your role to keep them out of your life. Or something.
 
2013-05-13 08:36:29 PM
Sen. Dan Hall, later speaking against the bill, expressed his fears about the legislation, saying, "Next, I believe we will be forced to believe what we don't."

Providing some of the most heated rhetoric of the debate, Hall said, "People say, 'Don't you want to be on the right side of history?' The truth is I'm more concerned about being on the right side of eternity."

It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.


Uh... wut?

So he's saying that passing a bill to ensure equality, something that should be guaranteed in our country, is going to hurt businesses and confuse children more than things like the emancipation of slaves, women's suffrage, prohibition...?

Way to elect an idiot Lakeville et. al.
 
2013-05-13 08:37:11 PM
this gopher is proud!
 
2013-05-13 08:38:30 PM

Dimensio: jvl: Dimensio: What rational justification exists to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.

I have frequently observed that individuals who are unable to present any rational justification for their position will, rather than admit their inability, instead attempt to justify their refusal to present any rational argument by claiming that no reasoned argument will be accepted by their opponents. In addition to same-sex marriage opponents, such a rhetorical tactic has been employed by creationists and by opponents of concealed weapons permit systems.

Rather than actually serve as a convincing response, however, such an attempt to justify refusing to provide an answer is intellectually dishonest.


There's just no talking to you about this stuff, you're not listening because you're too heavily invested in your own opinion.
 
2013-05-13 08:38:40 PM

Jesterling: jvl: Dimensio: What rational justification exists to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.

Care to enlighten us?


Not even gonna put up with the "why won't you tolerate my intolerance?" bullshiat. Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel. Some positions are flat out wrong. I'm sure your logical and philosophical consistency helps you sleep at night, but if you cant take issues on a case by case basis than either you are lazy or willfully perpetuating hatred.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 08:38:41 PM

Jesterling: jvl: In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.

Care to enlighten us?


Find someone older than you who your respect.  Your mother perhaps.  Up until the 70s, homosexuals were universally reviled. Ask that person who lived through that period if they thought homosexuality is wrong, and if so why?

Then ask what changed their mind, and use that logic to change the mind of others.

// I'm not old enough. As a kid I merely though it weird.
/// I got better
 
2013-05-13 08:41:06 PM
Nothing on her website about this. Today's news is thanking the pro-life crowd for that abortion doctor found guilty of murder.

Also interesting to note that her campaign headquarters is five miles from my house and outside of her district.
 
2013-05-13 08:41:12 PM

jvl: Dimensio: What rational justification exists to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.


What opinions? Opponents have hidden behind the Bible to justify trying to tell a certain group of the population that they are inferior and shouldn't get the option to do the same things they can. (Usually, quoting the same section of the Old Testament that says eating shrimp and shaving your facial hair are hell-worthy offenses.)


It's about telling other people how they are allowed to live. Always has been. People are entitled to their opinions, but when your opinion is used to try to shove your beliefs into someone else's face, fark you and the horse you rode in on.

Consenting adults can figure out how to live their own lives without any help.
 
2013-05-13 08:41:25 PM

Bane of Broone: Jesterling: jvl: Dimensio: What rational justification exists to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.

Care to enlighten us?

Not even gonna put up with the "why won't you tolerate my intolerance?" bullshiat. Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel. Some positions are flat out wrong. I'm sure your logical and philosophical consistency helps you sleep at night, but if you cant take issues on a case by case basis than either you are lazy or willfully perpetuating hatred.


Didn't mean to direct that towards you, Jesterling. I'm out anyway. Need to keep to my word and not give it a platform.
 
2013-05-13 08:41:39 PM
Nice part of these recent state actions is that it makes it more and more likely that SCOTUS will do something sweeping with the DoMA and Prop 8 cases. They hate being seen as holding back an inevitability, particularly one that will be a major note in the history books. Even Scalia is concerned about his legacy.
This makes a 9-0 (though really 5-4) DoMA decision more likely, with the liberals in favor of equal rights and the conservatives in favor of states' rights.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 08:42:39 PM

Bane of Broone: Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel.


I see you have the "demonize people who disagree with you" part of being human down pat.  Good job! But you probably should have avoided the whole "jump to conclusion" part where you accuse me of not being a supporter of Gay Marriage.

/ I will choose Free Will!
 
2013-05-13 08:43:48 PM

AccuJack: Dimensio: jvl: Dimensio: What rational justification exists to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.

I have frequently observed that individuals who are unable to present any rational justification for their position will, rather than admit their inability, instead attempt to justify their refusal to present any rational argument by claiming that no reasoned argument will be accepted by their opponents. In addition to same-sex marriage opponents, such a rhetorical tactic has been employed by creationists and by opponents of concealed weapons permit systems.

Rather than actually serve as a convincing response, however, such an attempt to justify refusing to provide an answer is intellectually dishonest.

There's just no talking to you about this stuff, you're not listening because you're too heavily invested in your own opinion.


I am willing to listen to and consider a rational argument for continuing to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage. I have requested, repeatedly, presentation of such an argument. Thus far, however, no such argument has been presented.
 
2013-05-13 08:43:54 PM

jvl: Bane of Broone: Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel.

I see you have the "demonize people who disagree with you" part of being human down pat.  Good job! But you probably should have avoided the whole "jump to conclusion" part where you accuse me of not being a supporter of Gay Marriage.

/ I will choose Free Will!


What's important here is that you've found a way to feel morally superior.  Kudos.
 
2013-05-13 08:44:16 PM
litreactor.com

Wolverine and Hercules?
Ohh yeahhh...
 
2013-05-13 08:45:26 PM
Good!!!
 
jvl
2013-05-13 08:45:38 PM

stoli n coke: What opinions? Opponents have hidden behind the Bible to justify trying to tell a certain group of the population that they are inferior and shouldn't get the option to do the same things they can. (Usually, quoting the same section of the Old Testament that says eating shrimp and shaving your facial hair are hell-worthy offenses.)


Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage."  So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?
 
2013-05-13 08:46:47 PM
Providing some of the most heated rhetoric of the debate, Hall said, "People say, 'Don't you want to be on the right side of history?' The truth is I'm more concerned about being on the right side of eternity."
=============================================

Considering this is what most christians believe, I'd rather party in hell.
 
2013-05-13 08:47:19 PM

Theaetetus: Nice part of these recent state actions is that it makes it more and more likely that SCOTUS will do something sweeping with the DoMA and Prop 8 cases. They hate being seen as holding back an inevitability, particularly one that will be a major note in the history books. Even Scalia is concerned about his legacy.
This makes a 9-0 (though really 5-4) DoMA decision more likely, with the liberals in favor of equal rights and the conservatives in favor of states' rights.


No, it's got to be at least 8-1 or 7-2; I can't imagine Scalia and his pet Thomas ever ever voting in favor of letting those icky homosexuals out in the open to Do It no matter what the states say is okay. He may want to preserve his legacy, but part of that legacy is never giving a shemale an even break.
 
2013-05-13 08:47:19 PM

jvl: stoli n coke: What opinions? Opponents have hidden behind the Bible to justify trying to tell a certain group of the population that they are inferior and shouldn't get the option to do the same things they can. (Usually, quoting the same section of the Old Testament that says eating shrimp and shaving your facial hair are hell-worthy offenses.)

Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage."  So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?


What's amazing to me is that you managed to read his post and somehow manage to get it completely wrong.
 
2013-05-13 08:48:05 PM

jvl: Bane of Broone: Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel.

I see you have the "demonize people who disagree with you" part of being human down pat.  Good job! But you probably should have avoided the whole "jump to conclusion" part where you accuse me of not being a supporter of Gay Marriage.

/ I will choose Free Will!



/I will choose Free Willy!
//zzzzzipppp
///Sproiinnngg!
 
jvl
2013-05-13 08:48:12 PM

Infernalist: What's important here is that you've found a way to feel morally superior.  Kudos.


Actually I was prouder of the Rush joke.
 
2013-05-13 08:48:41 PM

jvl: stoli n coke: What opinions? Opponents have hidden behind the Bible to justify trying to tell a certain group of the population that they are inferior and shouldn't get the option to do the same things they can. (Usually, quoting the same section of the Old Testament that says eating shrimp and shaving your facial hair are hell-worthy offenses.)

Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage."  So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?


So what's your non-religious opposition to gay marriage?
 
2013-05-13 08:49:16 PM

Bane of Broone: Bane of Broone: Jesterling: jvl: Dimensio: What rational justification exists to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.

Care to enlighten us?

Not even gonna put up with the "why won't you tolerate my intolerance?" bullshiat. Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel. Some positions are flat out wrong. I'm sure your logical and philosophical consistency helps you sleep at night, but if you cant take issues on a case by case basis than either you are lazy or willfully perpetuating hatred.

Didn't mean to direct that towards you, Jesterling. I'm out anyway. Need to keep to my word and not give it a platform.


Ya I figured, no worries.  I've yet to hear a good reason why gay marriage shouldn't be permitted in the US - it's always some nonsense about gayness being icky, naughty or frowned upon in Bronze Age holy books.
 
2013-05-13 08:49:53 PM
Why is the turd of a website constantly trotted out on Fark?
 
2013-05-13 08:49:57 PM

jake3988: Providing some of the most heated rhetoric of the debate, Hall said, "People say, 'Don't you want to be on the right side of history?' The truth is I'm more concerned about being on the right side of eternity."
=============================================

Considering this is what most christians believe, I'd rather party in hell.


The music and company will be arguably better. See you there!
 
2013-05-13 08:50:00 PM
Well now that can finally force all straight MN Christians to gay marry we can continue with our Ebil Liebrul AgendaTM to gain rights for Pet owners to marry their pet. TODAY GAY MARRIAGE, TOMORROW DOG-HUMAN MARRIAGE.
 
2013-05-13 08:50:34 PM

Granny_Panties: real_headhoncho: Now that it is okay for members of the same sex to marry each other, how about fixing your economy, or sending a manned mission to Mars, or doing something that is actually important?

Most if not all the money poured into this was fighting it. If you Republicans cared so much, maybe you could have just let the inevitable happen and go create some jobs instead. Nope, had to pour millions into sticking your nose in other people's business and legislating the bedroom.


Hey now, technically they created a bunch of marketing/advertizing jobs trying to spread their hate speech
 
2013-05-13 08:50:43 PM
Earthquakes and floods in Minnesota tomorrow.  Sky daddy mad!
 
2013-05-13 08:51:09 PM
So, if I understand the Michele Bachmann's line of reasoning correctly, the first thing that's going to happen is that millions of straight marriages are going to be destroyed because now it's possible for dudes to marry other dudes, which is what they really wanted all along. Straight marriage was the only thing keeping them from getting down on one knee and proposing to the pool boy, you see. Next, as I understand it, God will begin to send plagues and other natural disasters to express his displeasure, as well a few large scale incidents of violence. Finally, since homosexuality destroys every culture that embraces it, Minnesota will fall to a massive invasion of gay barbarians from the north, just like ancient Rome, if the Huns had been gay Canadian lumberjacks.

Did I miss anything?
 
2013-05-13 08:51:42 PM
We'll make the homosexual marriage illegal by voter proposition. They'll be biatching because their legal marriage licenses will be revoked but it's the senates fault because they have no authority to change the defination of marriage.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 08:52:06 PM

Dimensio: I am willing to listen to and consider a rational argument for continuing to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage. I have requested, repeatedly, presentation of such an argument. Thus far, however, no such argument has been presented.


You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again. Like me, you disagree with them and think the justification are just a product of traditionally-held tribal beliefs about homosexuality.

The only difference between you and me is the I'm content to call their reasoning wrong, whereas you insist that the argument is irrational.
 
2013-05-13 08:52:14 PM
@ Subby:

Oh my!
 
2013-05-13 08:52:23 PM
Yay for equality!  Sad that it's so little and too late for so many of us, but this is awesome news for many.
 
2013-05-13 08:52:28 PM

jvl: Infernalist: What's important here is that you've found a way to feel morally superior.  Kudos.

Actually I was prouder of the Rush joke.


Whatever is closer to the heart.
 
2013-05-13 08:52:37 PM
What the folks who voted against the law are really afraid of (start at about 1:25):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk
 
2013-05-13 08:53:42 PM
Way back when, when Chumboobler was a young batman villain, he had a chick that he loved. She loved a guy named Kirk and he was sooooo totally gay.  I did not care that Kirk was gay except for the fact that he held the affections of the girl I thought I loved. I told said girl that Kirk was gay and she told me that he just had "style".

Long story short. I like Kirk. I always will but some ladies will not believe the three dollar bill you put in front of them for any reason. Ideals they can be bad.
 
2013-05-13 08:54:30 PM
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann threatened to leave Minnesota today if the state goes ahead with its plans to legalize gay marriage.

In an interview with a local television station, the conservative firebrand said she believes God will destroy Minneapolis once the legislation is enacted, and wants to be far away when the reckoning happens.
"The Bible is very clear on this issue," she told KSTP-TV this morning, "Homosexuality is a sin, and God will punish communities that support it.

"Sodom and Gomorrah thought they could defy the will of God - and we all know what happened to them. If the governor signs this legislation into law the Minneapolis-St. Paul region will be next.

"I have a friend from Eden Prairie who's already packed everything she owns into her car and is driving out to Montana as we speak. These are very scary times. I don't want my family to be the last ones out."


How is there not a petition for her to leave the state?

Hell, I'd chip in for the gas money.  We need a fundraiser.  Gas money and rent for a moving van to Montana for Michele.  (And if she weasels out, we'll donate the money to some gay charity.)
 
2013-05-13 08:55:59 PM

jayhawk88: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

Oh man, he was just in a full derp lather wasn't he? Why not just mention the horrible effect it will have on puppies as well?


The Civil War is the new Hitler.
 
2013-05-13 08:56:33 PM

aerojockey: mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

Because all Republicans mindless robots who are only programmed to obey directives from their party leaders and have no will of their own, amirite?


No, because that's just stupid. But it happens so rarely that it is quite surprising and relieving. Is that okay?
 
jvl
2013-05-13 08:56:36 PM

LordJiro: So what's your non-religious opposition to gay marriage?


Is it really necessary for me to write "I am for Gay Marriage" in every post in order to prevent people from jumping to entirely unwarranted conclusions? Is it really impossible for me to advocate for a calmer approach so that we can convince others of our rightness without everyone branding me a Rush-listening Christian bigot who eats shellfish?

Burn the heretic?
 
2013-05-13 08:56:39 PM

To Wish Impossible Things: Congresswoman Michele Bachmann threatened to leave Minnesota today if the state goes ahead with its plans to legalize gay marriage.

In an interview with a local television station, the conservative firebrand said she believes God will destroy Minneapolis once the legislation is enacted, and wants to be far away when the reckoning happens.
"The Bible is very clear on this issue," she told KSTP-TV this morning, "Homosexuality is a sin, and God will punish communities that support it.

"Sodom and Gomorrah thought they could defy the will of God - and we all know what happened to them. If the governor signs this legislation into law the Minneapolis-St. Paul region will be next.

"I have a friend from Eden Prairie who's already packed everything she owns into her car and is driving out to Montana as we speak. These are very scary times. I don't want my family to be the last ones out."

How is there not a petition for her to leave the state?

Hell, I'd chip in for the gas money.  We need a fundraiser.  Gas money and rent for a moving van to Montana for Michele.  (And if she weasels out, we'll donate the money to some gay charity.)


Because some state will have to take her.
 
2013-05-13 08:56:45 PM

jvl: You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again.


You are mistaken. I have not. Typically, my solicitations for such argumentations are met with no response at all. Occasionally, I have been presented with entirely irrelevant data sets; one individual referenced a study of sexually transmitted diseases amongst homosexual men in the United Kingdom while claiming the study to relate to the consequences of legal same-sex marriage which obviously was impossible as same-sex marriage is still not legal in the United Kingdom. Another individual claimed that same-sex marriage will harm children, but when pressed for justification openly admitted that he could not support his claim with evidence. Irrelevant data sets and admittedly unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute rational argumentation.
 
2013-05-13 08:57:11 PM
Woop, wrong bookmark... I meant the 4 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk
 
2013-05-13 08:58:10 PM
The victors of the civil war hurt business badly and I am glad they did.  No more "cost of minimal food labor" ....aww... Slaver feeling sad? boo for you farker!
 
2013-05-13 08:58:18 PM

jvl: Dimensio: I am willing to listen to and consider a rational argument for continuing to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage. I have requested, repeatedly, presentation of such an argument. Thus far, however, no such argument has been presented.

You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again. Like me, you disagree with them and think the justification are just a product of traditionally-held tribal beliefs about homosexuality.

The only difference between you and me is the I'm content to call their reasoning wrong, whereas you insist that the argument is irrational.


What rational arguements do you think the opponants of gay marriage have put forward, that do not depend on cherrypicking portions of a religious text or a misunderstanding of the cultural history of marriage in IndoEuropian cultures?
 
2013-05-13 08:58:42 PM

Mister Peejay: real_headhoncho: Now that it is okay for members of the same sex to marry each other, how about fixing your economy, or sending a manned mission to Mars, or doing something that is actually important?

This.

You hurtin' anybody?  You hurtin' yourself?  No?  Then who the fark cares.


"Men and Nations will always do the right thing - after they have exhausted all other options"

/we getting there, you cannot erase 30+ years of mistakes overnight
 
jvl
2013-05-13 08:59:15 PM

Dimensio: jvl: You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again.

You are mistaken. I have not. Typically, my solicitations for such argumentations are met with no response at all. Occasionally, I have been presented with entirely irrelevant data sets; one individual referenced a study of sexually transmitted diseases amongst homosexual men in the United Kingdom while claiming the study to relate to the consequences of legal same-sex marriage which obviously was impossible as same-sex marriage is still not legal in the United Kingdom. Another individual claimed that same-sex marriage will harm children, but when pressed for justification openly admitted that he could not support his claim with evidence. Irrelevant data sets and admittedly unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute rational argumentation.


I fail to see how the existence of a non-rational argument against gay marriage demonstrates that you have not heard a rational one.
 
2013-05-13 08:59:16 PM

King Something: 8080801

/if you do not know what that means, then you are a normal person


http://www.amazon.com/FELLOWES-HEAT-SLIDE-FOOTREST-8080801/dp/B006LL R9 9M

wut ?
 
2013-05-13 08:59:50 PM
More like happenis
 
2013-05-13 09:00:49 PM

jvl: Bane of Broone: Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel.

I see you have the "demonize people who disagree with you" part of being human down pat.  Good job! But you probably should have avoided the whole "jump to conclusion" part where you accuse me of not being a supporter of Gay Marriage.

/ I will choose Free Will!


Ah... the old "I haven't taken a position, so everything you say is wrong" troll. Its my favorite!
 
2013-05-13 09:00:53 PM

jvl: Dimensio: jvl: You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again.

You are mistaken. I have not. Typically, my solicitations for such argumentations are met with no response at all. Occasionally, I have been presented with entirely irrelevant data sets; one individual referenced a study of sexually transmitted diseases amongst homosexual men in the United Kingdom while claiming the study to relate to the consequences of legal same-sex marriage which obviously was impossible as same-sex marriage is still not legal in the United Kingdom. Another individual claimed that same-sex marriage will harm children, but when pressed for justification openly admitted that he could not support his claim with evidence. Irrelevant data sets and admittedly unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute rational argumentation.

I fail to see how the existence of a non-rational argument against gay marriage demonstrates that you have not heard a rational one.


I presented examples of what I have observed. You have asserted that I have also heard or seen a rational argument opposing legal recognition of same-sex marriage, but you have not provided any demonstration of such.
 
2013-05-13 09:01:55 PM

jvl: Dimensio: jvl: You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again.

You are mistaken. I have not. Typically, my solicitations for such argumentations are met with no response at all. Occasionally, I have been presented with entirely irrelevant data sets; one individual referenced a study of sexually transmitted diseases amongst homosexual men in the United Kingdom while claiming the study to relate to the consequences of legal same-sex marriage which obviously was impossible as same-sex marriage is still not legal in the United Kingdom. Another individual claimed that same-sex marriage will harm children, but when pressed for justification openly admitted that he could not support his claim with evidence. Irrelevant data sets and admittedly unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute rational argumentation.

I fail to see how the existence of a non-rational argument against gay marriage demonstrates that you have not heard a rational one.


Have you seen a rational arguement? I havent, and am interested in seeing one.

/on my phne on the bus, please excuse tyops.
 
2013-05-13 09:02:30 PM

Noam Chimpsky: senates fault because they have no authority to change the defination of marriage.


A legislative body has no authority to change a law?

That's new.

Can you expound upon that, please?
 
2013-05-13 09:04:08 PM

FunkOut: xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I believe it's because he behaves in a manner seen as somewhat effeminate. Plus his wife seems to be the boss while he's the spouse trailing after her. Glenn Beck is crying frequently in public, many see that as girly. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is not girly. Perhaps even a robot. People often get the idea a man is gay if he's openly emotional or kind of theatrical. This is a bit silly because they forget macho hairy bear men exist.


As an aside, it's interesting how cultures can be so different.  In ancient Greece, a man was expected to cry, at least for certain reasons, or else he wasn't a man.  I think Odysseus cried like 40 times in the Illiad.
 
2013-05-13 09:06:16 PM

xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile.


Well, it would seem that way, if it wasn't for the fact that the guy really is very, -very- gay. Not just slightly gay, but about as gay as you can possibly get.

/Christ, do some research on the guy before you post next time, there isn't ANY red flag that guy misses.
//Or would that be pink flag?
 
2013-05-13 09:06:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: senates fault because they have no authority to change the defination of marriage.

A legislative body has no authority to change a law?

That's new.

Can you expound upon that, please?


Noam Chimpsky is a "birther". As such, do not expect any actual understanding of law, do not expect any intellectual honesty and do not expect any ability to reason.
 
2013-05-13 09:06:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: senates fault because they have no authority to change the defination of marriage.

A legislative body has no authority to change a law?

That's new.

Can you expound upon that, please?


He might be going on the (laughable but understandable) claim that marriage is a religious term meaning one man and one woman... Ignoring all other historical definitions, and that the US is polytheistic in population.

My reply is, my church(sic) allows any consenting adult to join together with any other consenting adult - consenting meaning they are capable of understanding what it is that they are doing.

By banning gay marriage, my religious rights are being trampled.
 
2013-05-13 09:07:02 PM

FunkOut: jvl: Infernalist: What's important here is that you've found a way to feel morally superior.  Kudos.

Actually I was prouder of the Rush joke.

Whatever is closer to the heart.


Don't worry.  We've taken care of everything, the words you hear and the songs you sing, and the pictures that give pleasure to your eyes.

/we have taken control
 
2013-05-13 09:07:24 PM

Martian_Astronomer: So, if I understand the Michele Bachmann's line of reasoning correctly, the first thing that's going to happen is that millions of straight marriages are going to be destroyed because now it's possible for dudes to marry other dudes, which is what they really wanted all along. Straight marriage was the only thing keeping them from getting down on one knee and proposing to the pool boy, you see


You can understand why she might think that way.

images.dangerousminds.net
 
2013-05-13 09:08:42 PM

jvl: stoli n coke: What opinions? Opponents have hidden behind the Bible to justify trying to tell a certain group of the population that they are inferior and shouldn't get the option to do the same things they can. (Usually, quoting the same section of the Old Testament that says eating shrimp and shaving your facial hair are hell-worthy offenses.)

Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage."  So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?


Name one person who is opposed to it for a non-religion based reason.

I don't hate Christians at all. I am one. I just never understood how a preacher can stand at the pulpit clean-shaven wearing mixed fabrics and say that one section of Leviticus will incur divine wrath while the other rules listed right down the same page are okay now before ending the service and going to the seafood potluck.

Marriage is a legal construct in this country, not a religious one. Churches can still refuse to marry couples. I know churches that won't marry a couple if the woman is pregnant. I know a church that won't marry couples if one of them has been divorced. I even know one that didn't marry interracial couples up until a few years ago (byproduct of growing up in the South). Their operations won't change one bit.

This is about insurance, visiting partners in hospitals, legal rights to estates, helping speed along the adoption process, etc.  In other words, the stuff a lot of married couples take for granted because they've never been screwed over by it.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 09:09:25 PM

Summercat: What rational arguements do you think the opponants of gay marriage have put forward, that do not depend on cherrypicking portions of a religious text or a misunderstanding of the cultural history of marriage in IndoEuropian cultures?


I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.

I would get tired if I tried to enumerate all that is wrong with the argument, but most of my argument would entail how the institution of marriage was historically more like slavery, how my opponent is too focused on the rationalizations based on the history of recent centuries, and the suggestion that kindness alone is sufficient argument to allow gay marriage even if my opponent's view of the original purpose of marriage were correct.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 09:13:18 PM

CliChe Guevara: Well, it would seem that way, if it wasn't for the fact that the guy really is very, -very- gay. Not just slightly gay, but about as gay as you can possibly get.


What your basically saying is that people who call themselves Gay but who act masculine are hiding their real heterosexual identity.  A Gay riding a Harley? That's about as straight as you can possibly get.

NTTAWWT
 
2013-05-13 09:13:31 PM

Martian_Astronomer: So, if I understand the Michele Bachmann's line of reasoning correctly, the first thing that's going to happen is that millions of straight marriages are going to be destroyed because now it's possible for dudes to marry other dudes, which is what they really wanted all along. Straight marriage was the only thing keeping them from getting down on one knee and proposing to the pool boy, you see. Next, as I understand it, God will begin to send plagues and other natural disasters to express his displeasure, as well a few large scale incidents of violence. Finally, since homosexuality destroys every culture that embraces it, Minnesota will fall to a massive invasion of gay barbarians from the north, just like ancient Rome, if the Huns had been gay Canadian lumberjacks.

Did I miss anything?


I think I found your trouble
 
2013-05-13 09:14:25 PM

jvl: CliChe Guevara: Well, it would seem that way, if it wasn't for the fact that the guy really is very, -very- gay. Not just slightly gay, but about as gay as you can possibly get.

What your basically saying is that people who call themselves Gay but who act masculine are hiding their real heterosexual identity.  A Gay riding a Harley? That's about as straight as you can possibly get.

NTTAWWT


In which alternate universe is Mr. Marcus Bachmann's demeanour considered to be "masculine"?

Additionally, was Aliens: Colonial Marines a worthwhile game in that universe?
 
2013-05-13 09:15:24 PM

jvl: Summercat: What rational arguements do you think the opponants of gay marriage have put forward, that do not depend on cherrypicking portions of a religious text or a misunderstanding of the cultural history of marriage in IndoEuropian cultures?

I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.

I would get tired if I tried to enumerate all that is wrong with the argument, but most of my argument would entail how the institution of marriage was historically more like slavery, how my opponent is too focused on the rationalizations based on the history of recent centuries, and the suggestion that kindness alone is sufficient argument to allow gay marriage even if my opponent's view of the original purpose of marriage were correct.


Procreation as an arguement is rational on the surface, until you actually look at it. We already allow people to get married who can not have children, and we do not have laws on the books forcing married couples to have children.

Further, not only are this class of people (gays) unlikely to procreate natually, when they do form family groups they tend to adopt children who have been orphaned or abandoned. Studies have shown that a multi-parent household is better than a single parent household, et we block the formation of households able to adopt children.

The arguements rationality is only a thin dusty coating. It is just an attempt at grasping at straws. It is not rational at all.
 
2013-05-13 09:15:24 PM

Pichu0102: For a second I thought he might have killed himself, thankfully the headline was a little misleading and he didn't.


This.

/Also:
//♫♪ what a difference a gay makes ♪ ♫
 
2013-05-13 09:15:55 PM

aerojockey: mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

Because all Republicans mindless robots who are only programmed to obey directives from their party leaders and have no will of their own, amirite?


Well, the ones that get to stay in office are. There are still occasionally some independent minded Republicans left, but not many as the Rove/Bush political machine pretty much did away with most of them years ago.  You still see one now and again, like Pat Brady, but like him their careers end sometimes only days (or sometimes even minutes) after breaking party ranks in even the smallest way.
 The GOP doesn't even wait until the next election to put them under the bus anymore, especially if they espouse a traditionally GOP conservative value that now runs counter to the whims of the money that drives the GOP's current decisions now.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 09:17:20 PM

Dimensio: In which alternate universe is Mr. Marcus Bachmann's demeanour considered to be "masculine"?


Did you just hear a whooshing noise just over your head?  Cause that sure as hell is not what I just said.
 
2013-05-13 09:18:14 PM

To Wish Impossible Things: Congresswoman Michele Bachmann threatened to leave Minnesota today if the state goes ahead with its plans to legalize gay marriage.

In an interview with a local television station, the conservative firebrand said she believes God will destroy Minneapolis once the legislation is enacted, and wants to be far away when the reckoning happens.
"The Bible is very clear on this issue," she told KSTP-TV this morning, "Homosexuality is a sin, and God will punish communities that support it.

"Sodom and Gomorrah thought they could defy the will of God - and we all know what happened to them. If the governor signs this legislation into law the Minneapolis-St. Paul region will be next.

"I have a friend from Eden Prairie who's already packed everything she owns into her car and is driving out to Montana as we speak. These are very scary times. I don't want my family to be the last ones out."

How is there not a petition for her to leave the state?

Hell, I'd chip in for the gas money.  We need a fundraiser.  Gas money and rent for a moving van to Montana for Michele.  (And if she weasels out, we'll donate the money to some gay charity.)


Far be it from me to defend Bachmann, but you realize that's made up, right?
 
2013-05-13 09:18:44 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Paris1127: The only abomination about gay weddings in Minnesota would be the lutefisk served there...

/Illinois really needs to step up to the plate here...

Lutefisk would be an abomination at ANY wedding.


Eating Lutefisk Is A Learned Behavior

kimwim: Almost Everybody Poops: Awesome.

In Illinois, SSM bill passed senate and is pending a vote in the house.  They're trying to get enough votes to pass it and I think they will this summer.

Why is it taking so long? The Minn. House just passed this last week!


Illinois's dealing with some pension problems. Marriage equality should reach Illinois by the end of the year, I hope.
 
2013-05-13 09:20:18 PM

kimwim: Almost Everybody Poops: Awesome.

In Illinois, SSM bill passed senate and is pending a vote in the house.  They're trying to get enough votes to pass it and I think they will this summer.

Why is it taking so long? The Minn. House just passed this last week!


The Illinois house, while democrats are the majority, contain a lot of social conservatives.  It's pretty much the rural part of the states where even thouogh they vote for a democrat, if that rep was to come out as pro-SSM it would jeopardize their seat.
 
2013-05-13 09:22:47 PM

morlinge: I just want to know when I'll be able to marry my turtle. I have a really nice turtle.


Mitch McConnell won't sleep with you.
 
rpm
2013-05-13 09:23:14 PM

jvl: I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.


Most who trot out that don't follow that to the rational conclusion. I'm sterile, should I be allowed to marry? If so, why? (for the record, I am married). What about post-menopausal women?
 
2013-05-13 09:26:05 PM

Dimensio: Can you expound upon that, please?

Noam Chimpsky is a "birther". As such, do not expect any actual understanding of law, do not expect any intellectual honesty and do not expect any ability to reason.


You misspelled "troll". That's one that should be on everyone's ignore list.
 
2013-05-13 09:26:14 PM

rpm: jvl: I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.

Most who trot out that don't follow that to the rational conclusion. I'm sterile, should I be allowed to marry? If so, why? (for the record, I am married). What about post-menopausal women?


Nor is there anything saying (US laws) that fertile couples must have children.
 
2013-05-13 09:27:18 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: morlinge: I just want to know when I'll be able to marry my turtle. I have a really nice turtle.

Mitch McConnell won't sleep with you.


my turtle is female thank you very much. I don't mess with that freaky same sex interspecies crowd.
 
2013-05-13 09:28:03 PM

vygramul: Infernalist: Has Crazy-eyes come out with an official statement yet?  Cause, seriously, I could go for some Conservative Tears right about now.

Just wait. I'm sure Fark's resident independents will be here shortly.


Nah. They're too busy derping it up in the Benghazi and IRS threads. And I get the feeling they've given up on the gay marriage thing given the way the wind seems to be blowing.
 
2013-05-13 09:29:11 PM

morlinge: Almost Everybody Poops: morlinge: I just want to know when I'll be able to marry my turtle. I have a really nice turtle.

Mitch McConnell won't sleep with you.

my turtle is female thank you very much. I don't mess with that freaky same sex interspecies crowd.


As a guy loving male furry, booo!
 
2013-05-13 09:29:54 PM

xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.


I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.
 
2013-05-13 09:30:55 PM

mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.


Obviously, he isn't a Republican, just a RINO.

Which is good.  We need fewer Republicans.
 
2013-05-13 09:32:41 PM

jvl: Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage."  So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?


You poor, poor persecuted little man.

I'll let you in on a hint: It's not Bah'ai, Atheists, Buddhists, and Muslims marching in the streets and demanding that God wants people to keep gay marriage illegal.
 
2013-05-13 09:33:04 PM
In other news, 30 members of the Minnesota state Senate need to be booted out of office.
 
2013-05-13 09:34:23 PM

ramblinwreck: dukeblue219: ramblinwreck: Girl From The North Country: It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.

LOLWUT

? Couldn't spend 5 seconds Googling it? The constitutional amendment was narrowly defeated, 48-51 last November:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/minnesota-amendment-1-result s -2012_n_2050310.html

My mistake, mistook the context as state vs federal.


I mistook it as well and was confused. Pretty wonderful turnaround given that last vote.
 
2013-05-13 09:34:38 PM

xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.


i581.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-13 09:36:14 PM

raatz01: Am I out of the loop... I thought the headline was a Bachmann divorce announcement.


Could be the end result out of all possibilities. I suspect the turkey baster will get visitation rights.

And, that was harsh. I'll bet Marcus is a great dad, even though he's gay.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 09:39:54 PM

Summercat: Procreation as an arguement is rational on the surface, until you actually look at it. We already allow people to get married who can not have children, and we do not have laws on the books forcing married couples to have children.


Marriage is a preferred class of people given special preferences by the government. Let us suppose the purpose of government in doling out these preferences is to encourage or assist procreation. The question is, how should the government distinguish between those given and not given these preferences? Selecting heterosexuals as the only recipient of this welfare is a very course-grained choice since, as you point out, there will be some couplings that are infertile either voluntarily or non-voluntairly.

If one wanted to select only the fertile couples more carefully, then how far should we go? Do we psychoanalyze them? Should we test their plumbing thereby revealing things even the couple does not know? We could do those things. We could create a maze of laws and regulations establishing which tests must be performed and for how long.

I would argue that a line must be drawn, and that, assuming the goal is procreation, the currently line is a reasonable compromise between the interests of the state and over-regulated complexity.

Further, not only are this class of people (gays) unlikely to procreate natually, when they do form family groups they tend to adopt children who have been orphaned or abandoned. Studies have shown that a multi-parent household is better than a single parent household, et we block the formation of households able to adopt children.

As a supporter of Gay Marriage, I really hate to say this: as of yet we lack scientific evidence on the efficacy of gay parenting. You might recall that when Prop 8 was argued before the Supremes, the opponents of Prop 8 conceded this. Prior to that Supreme Court appearance, I had never heard of this argument.

Second, I agree that Multi-Parent households produce demonstrably better statistical results than Single-Parent households. However there is no lack of heterosexual couples willing to adopt.

The arguements rationality is only a thin dusty coating. It is just an attempt at grasping at straws. It is not rational at all.

I agree it is a thin dusty coating to rationalize what people already think. I disagree that conceding this proves that the argument is non-rational.
 
2013-05-13 09:40:39 PM

xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.


It's not just about the possibility of Marcus being gay - it's also about how Marcus runs a "gay therapy" / "pray the gay away" center.  Thus, such attacks from Farkers are also against the hypocrisy.
 
2013-05-13 09:41:58 PM

xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.


Fark liberals can be a little more sophisticated than that.

Marcus Bachman really is gay.  He's as gay as gay can be gay.  He's Oscar Wilde gay.  He ran a pray-away-the-gay.

/And hey, now he can get gay married!
//Yay!
 
2013-05-13 09:42:23 PM
I love how the headline even has double meaning: He can find happiness because now he can marry his true love, and he can find happiness now that Michele is going to leave the state.

This had better get nominated for Contextual Headline of the Year.
 
2013-05-13 09:43:38 PM
Honestly, my first thought was "in Bachmann's state? This must be a mistake."

Because of their electing Mrs. Bachmann, I have always thought of MN as a bit more of an intolerant and prejudiced state.  Which, frankly, totally doesn't jive with their love of hockey and reputation for friendliness, but frankly you Americans are just a total mystery to the rest of us.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 09:43:39 PM

hardinparamedic: I'll let you in on a hint: It's not Bah'ai, Atheists, Buddhists, and Muslims marching in the streets and demanding that God wants people to keep gay marriage illegal.


Well, someone isn't familiar with the general beliefs of Muslims...
 
2013-05-13 09:43:56 PM

PsiChick: xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.


 THIS.

 The guy still or at least up until recently ran some sort of operation that tried to 'correct' other gay men to straight, obsesses about the subject constantly, and is worried that SSM will break up traditional marriages because men in traditional marriages will now feel empowered to run off with other men.
 Tell me again how it is just homophobia that people think the guy has some orientation issues.
 
2013-05-13 09:44:02 PM

Summercat: jvl: Summercat: What rational arguements do you think the opponants of gay marriage have put forward, that do not depend on cherrypicking portions of a religious text or a misunderstanding of the cultural history of marriage in IndoEuropian cultures?

I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.

I would get tired if I tried to enumerate all that is wrong with the argument, but most of my argument would entail how the institution of marriage was historically more like slavery, how my opponent is too focused on the rationalizations based on the history of recent centuries, and the suggestion that kindness alone is sufficient argument to allow gay marriage even if my opponent's view of the original purpose of marriage were correct.

Procreation as an arguement is rational on the surface, until you actually look at it. We already allow people to get married who can not have children, and we do not have laws on the books forcing married couples to have children.

Further, not only are this class of people (gays) unlikely to procreate natually, when they do form family groups they tend to adopt children who have been orphaned or abandoned. Studies have shown that a multi-parent household is better than a single parent household, et we block the formation of households able to adopt children.

The arguements rationality is only a thin dusty coating. It is just an attempt at grasping at straws. It is not rational at all.


What I'm understanding from  jvl's posts is that there are more productive ways to convince others that SSM is okay other than outright shaming them for thinking otherwise.  The argument he cited, as you just shown, can easily be debunked as "irrational", but to a lot of people they have an ingrained idea of marriage most likely they learned from their parents, and as well all know Americans are stubborn bastards.

Then again, there are also plenty of people who just won't understand regardless of how you try to reason with them. It's nice to think that we can easily just site an anti-SSM person down, rationally explain to them why their reasons for being against it are unfounded or based on false data/studies, but those people are few and far between in today's political climate.
 
2013-05-13 09:46:08 PM

jvl: Well, someone isn't familiar with the general beliefs of Muslims...


Call me when they're marching down the streets of Minnesota holding signs about how God wants the gays to repent their sinful ways of homosex.
 
2013-05-13 09:47:43 PM

mavrickatubc: Honestly, my first thought was "in Bachmann's state? This must be a mistake."

Because of their electing Mrs. Bachmann, I have always thought of MN as a bit more of an intolerant and prejudiced state.  Which, frankly, totally doesn't jive with their love of hockey and reputation for friendliness, but frankly you Americans are just a total mystery to the rest of us.


Backmann is a huge outlier when it comes to your typical Minnesotan.  They're more like the live-and-let-live type.
 
2013-05-13 09:47:49 PM

mavrickatubc: Honestly, my first thought was "in Bachmann's state? This must be a mistake."

Because of their electing Mrs. Bachmann, I have always thought of MN as a bit more of an intolerant and prejudiced state.  Which, frankly, totally doesn't jive with their love of hockey and reputation for friendliness, but frankly you Americans are just a total mystery to the rest of us.


In our defense, we're quite liberal.  We've voted for the Dem for President every year since 1976, so frankly Bachmann is the exception not the rule.  Kept in place mainly by extreme gerrymandering on the part of the Republican house.
 
2013-05-13 09:48:55 PM

radarlove: So that means people in MN can marry 5-year-olds and horses and trees now, right?


Don't forget the turtles.  Proud to be from MN today!
 
jvl
2013-05-13 09:49:46 PM

hardinparamedic: jvl: Well, someone isn't familiar with the general beliefs of Muslims...

Call me when they're marching down the streets of Minnesota holding signs about how God wants the gays to repent their sinful ways of homosex.


Meanwhile, in France...
 
2013-05-13 09:50:20 PM
Michelle is going to burn so many books tonight
 
2013-05-13 09:52:23 PM

Abox: The anti-gay movement is populated by two kinds of people - women who fear abandonment and resentful closeted gay men. Michele's worst fear may finally come true.


Really, no one just flat out hates gay people? There is no religious opposition?
 
2013-05-13 09:52:34 PM
Can they legally get a divorce or is that another battle to be fought?


//sincere question
///awesome headline subby
 
jvl
2013-05-13 09:54:07 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: It's nice to think that we can easily just site an anti-SSM person down, rationally explain to them why their reasons for being against it are unfounded or based on false data/studies, but those people are few and far between in today's political climate.


Not true. For example, in California, which famously voted for President Obama and High-Speed Rail while voting to ban gay marriage, you can expect that there will be plenty of people who will listen to you. They'll say "I just don't believe in that stuff."  Go with "it just gives them the right to see each other in the hospital, pax taxes together, and call themselves married. You can still just keep not talking to them."

Going with "this doesn't hurt you" is the easy way since it doesn't require actually changing the person's mind.
 
2013-05-13 09:54:35 PM

kimwim: King Something: 8080801

/if you do not know what that means, then you are a normal person

I DON'T WANT TO BE NORMAL!!!


DAMMIT MAN!
 
2013-05-13 09:54:41 PM

jvl: hardinparamedic: jvl: Well, someone isn't familiar with the general beliefs of Muslims...

Call me when they're marching down the streets of Minnesota holding signs about how God wants the gays to repent their sinful ways of homosex.

Meanwhile, in France...


This isn't about what's happening in France. Your link is entirely irrelevant given this discussion. This is about what's happening in the United States.

Stop trying to deflect the issue.

Try to stay on topic, and do remind me, again, what group is the most vocal and most active in campaigning against SSM and Gay Rights, and what type of argument is the most common made against those?

And do try to be honest.
 
2013-05-13 09:55:04 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: Summercat: jvl: Summercat: What rational arguements do you think the opponants of gay marriage have put forward, that do not depend on cherrypicking portions of a religious text or a misunderstanding of the cultural history of marriage in IndoEuropian cultures?

I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.

I would get tired if I tried to enumerate all that is wrong with the argument, but most of my argument would entail how the institution of marriage was historically more like slavery, how my opponent is too focused on the rationalizations based on the history of recent centuries, and the suggestion that kindness alone is sufficient argument to allow gay marriage even if my opponent's view of the original purpose of marriage were correct.

Procreation as an arguement is rational on the surface, until you actually look at it. We already allow people to get married who can not have children, and we do not have laws on the books forcing married couples to have children.

Further, not only are this class of people (gays) unlikely to procreate natually, when they do form family groups they tend to adopt children who have been orphaned or abandoned. Studies have shown that a multi-parent household is better than a single parent household, et we block the formation of households able to adopt children.

The arguements rationality is only a thin dusty coating. It is just an attempt at grasping at straws. It is not rational at all.

What I'm understanding from  jvl's posts is that there are more productive ways to convince others that SSM is okay other than outright shaming them for thinking otherwise.  The argument he cited, as you just shown, can easily be debunked as "irrational", but to a lot of people they have an ingrained idea of marriage most likely they learned from their parents, and as well all know American ...


Hence why I said it was understandable. I know where they're coming from, but it is from a place where they are uneducated about the background behind their claims. 

jvl: Summercat: Procreation as an arguement is rational on the surface, until you actually look at it. We already allow people to get married who can not have children, and we do not have laws on the books forcing married couples to have children.

Marriage is a preferred class of people given special preferences by the government. Let us suppose the purpose of government in doling out these preferences is to encourage or assist procreation. The question is, how should the government distinguish between those given and not given these preferences? Selecting heterosexuals as the only recipient of this welfare is a very course-grained choice since, as you point out, there will be some couplings that are infertile either voluntarily or non-voluntairly.

If one wanted to select only the fertile couples more carefully, then how far should we go? Do we psychoanalyze them? Should we test their plumbing thereby revealing things even the couple does not know? We could do those things. We could create a maze of laws and regulations establishing which tests must be performed and for how long.

I would argue that a line must be drawn, and that, assuming the goal is procreation, the currently line is a reasonable compromise between the interests of the state and over-regulated complexity.

Further, not only are this class of people (gays) unlikely to procreate natually, when they do form family groups they tend to adopt children who have been orphaned or abandoned. Studies have shown that a multi-parent household is better than a single parent household, et we block the formation of households able to adopt children.

As a supporter of Gay Marriage, I really hate to say this: as of yet we lack scientific evidence on the efficacy of gay parenting. You might recall that when Prop 8 was argued before the Supremes, the opponents of Prop 8 conceded this. Prior to that Supreme Court appearance, I had never heard of this argument.

Second, I agree that Multi-Parent households produce demons ...


It was a relatively recent study, that determined that the best results were:
2 parents opposite gender > 2 parents, same gender > Single parent either gender.

It's hard to say how conclusive said study is, simply because of the paucity of data to draw from, and the fact that most of the results used by the study had to have been when there was an even greater stigma of being homosexual, or having homosexual parents - the externalities of harassment and ostracism can't be easily measured.

However, there are also studies that hint that *additional* parental figures in a family can be a boon overall to child development. FURTHER, the study concluded that two parents are, hands down, better than one - or none, in the case of foster kids.

Marriage is a special group given by our legal system for multiple reasons - "Spawning children" is not main purpose, nor a requirement, of marriage. Thus the procreation aspect is a red herring, and not a rational arguement to ban gay marriage (especially since said arguement can be turned on it's head as per adoption)
 
2013-05-13 09:55:17 PM

Amidala: cptjeff: FormlessOne: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

Maybe I'm misreading that statement, but that statement implies to me that this asshole felt that businesses were hurt and children confused when Minnesota voted against slavery? Seriously?

Well, certain businesses were hurt when we outlawed slavery. And the meatpacking industry was hurt when we started requiring them to make sure workers didn't fall into the meat grinders. Even if it was true that letting gays marry would hurt businesses (and it's laughably false), it's utterly irrelevant.

I would think gay marriage will help the meatpacking industry.


You're thinking of the poor workers languishing in the dwindling fudgepacking industry.
 
2013-05-13 09:59:00 PM

PsiChick: xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.


He RUNS a pray-away-the-gay camp. Seriously.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-ca nd idates-clinic/story?id=14048691#.UZGU994o7IU
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:01:27 PM

hardinparamedic: This isn't about what's happening in France. Your link is entirely irrelevant given this discussion. This is about what's happening in the United States.


I wasn't the one who moved the goal posts: you did.  Here's your original post to refresh your memory. Maybe you can show me the part where it says "United States"? Or possibly where the bad man touched you.

hardinparamedic: jvl: Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage."  So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?

You poor, poor persecuted little man.

I'll let you in on a hint: It's not Bah'ai, Atheists, Buddhists, and Muslims marching in the streets and demanding that God wants people to keep gay marriage illegal.

 
2013-05-13 10:02:39 PM

morlinge: I just want to know when I'll be able to marry my turtle. I have a really nice turtle.


Isn't Mitch McConnell already married?
 
2013-05-13 10:03:45 PM

jvl: Almost Everybody Poops: It's nice to think that we can easily just site an anti-SSM person down, rationally explain to them why their reasons for being against it are unfounded or based on false data/studies, but those people are few and far between in today's political climate.

Not true. For example, in California, which famously voted for President Obama and High-Speed Rail while voting to ban gay marriage, you can expect that there will be plenty of people who will listen to you. They'll say "I just don't believe in that stuff."  Go with "it just gives them the right to see each other in the hospital, pax taxes together, and call themselves married. You can still just keep not talking to them."

Going with "this doesn't hurt you" is the easy way since it doesn't require actually changing the person's mind.


Oh I agree with you, the argument that it won't affect you one bit is the most powerful one, but there are plenty of people who don't care even if you explain all the legal benefits they'll get, how it will actually help the family structure, etc.

There are plenty of people that can be convinced, but there are so many barriers that make it so much harder, including cultural, political, and just plan stubborness.  A lot of people associate with only like-minded people or live in an area where their beliefs are homogeneous, and while I think individually most people would see the rational argument, today's political climate makes it much harder.
 
2013-05-13 10:04:46 PM

nmrsnr: And once again, Nate Silver is a wizard.

He put forward a model in 2009 for which year each state would no longer support banning gay marriage. For Minnesota? 2013.


He's estimating 2021 for Oklahoma.

I think that's a bit optimistic.

//God, I hate the politics here ...
 
rpm
2013-05-13 10:06:31 PM

jvl: I would argue that a line must be drawn, and that, assuming the goal is procreation, the currently line is a reasonable compromise between the interests of the state and over-regulated complexity.


Menopause is a pretty damn easy line to draw. Why is there no law saying post-menopausal women can't get married? Why isn't there an upper age limit for women? That's a damn easy way to regulate, why isn't it done? Women between age of majority and 65 can get married. It's not hard to add an upper range to existing law.
 
2013-05-13 10:07:49 PM

Summercat: Marriage is a special group given by our legal system for multiple reasons - "Spawning children" is not main purpose, nor a requirement, of marriage. Thus the procreation aspect is a red herring, and not a rational arguement to ban gay marriage (especially since said arguement can be turned on it's head as per adoption)


For many religious people it is not a red herring but part of their core beliefs.  They just can't approve of SSM because for them the entire purpose of marriage is for procreation.  Not saying that's a rational argument from a societal or communal sense, but some people have beliefs that they  cannot compromise on, which seems to be spreading...
 
2013-05-13 10:08:39 PM

limeyfellow: morlinge: I just want to know when I'll be able to marry my turtle. I have a really nice turtle.

Isn't Mitch McConnell already married?


Wait... isn't this the slippery slope they warned us about?!!
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:10:08 PM

Summercat: Marriage is a special group given by our legal system for multiple reasons - "Spawning children" is not main purpose, nor a requirement, of marriage. Thus the procreation aspect is a red herring, and not a rational arguement to ban gay marriage (especially since said arguement can be turned on it's head as per adoption)


You assert that procreation is not the main purpose without evidence. Second, let's assume you are right and that procreation is not the main purpose. That does not make it a red herring if an opponent does not concede that an alternative purpose is correct.

In other words, to demonstrate that your opponent is irrational, you have an extremely difficult bar to surmount: you must show that the main purpose is inarguably not procreation. That "inarguable" part is why you will not be able to succeed.

Therefore the anti-Gay Marriage argument is merely wrong and not irrational, I'm right, and Hillary Clinton (my fav) is now automatically president.
 
2013-05-13 10:10:41 PM
If there is one thing this thread proves, it is that those who support this measure are mostly irrational and insulting.  How many pictures of the Bachmann's eating corndogs followed by snorts and giggles does it take for people to realize where the hate and the weakest arguments (condescension rather than rationale) really lie?
 
2013-05-13 10:11:08 PM

jvl: you must show that the main purpose is inarguably not procreation


That's not difficult at all. 85 year old women are legally allowed to be married. Ergo, the purpose of marriage is not procreation.
 
2013-05-13 10:12:11 PM

06Wahoo: If there is one thing this thread proves, it is that those who support this measure are mostly irrational and insulting.  How many pictures of the Bachmann's eating corndogs followed by snorts and giggles does it take for people to realize where the hate and the weakest arguments (condescension rather than rationale) really lie?


The side that's complaining about all the joking, obviously? Oh, and the side trying to deny equal rights to American citizens. They're (obviously) the same side.
 
2013-05-13 10:12:11 PM

jvl: I wasn't the one who moved the goal posts: you did.  Here's your original post to refresh your memory. Maybe you can show me the part where it says "United States"? Or possibly where the bad man touched you.


The Article in question was about Minnesota. In what intellectually dishonest world did you think I was referring to anywhere but the United States? And moving the goalpost? You were the one that decided to try to change the topic to "all the bad things muslims were doing in France.", which is irrelevant to the topic.

Are you now to the point of concern trolling with red herrings and imaginary argumentum ad logicum, or do you actually have a learning disability where you can't follow the conversation stemming from the article, and your apologetics for the religious reasons which people crusade against basic human rights for gays and lesbians in the United States?

Those seem to be the only explanations for your level of deflection and avoidance of the issue here,  including pulling a situation which is completely unrelated to the conversation out of your ass and using it to try to change the conversation to the topic of "but, but, but Muslims" when the actual issue is that the overwhelming majority of people in the United States who crusade against GLBT issues are both Christian and use their narrow and hypocritical interpretations of religious scripture to justify it?
 
2013-05-13 10:12:15 PM

brandent: Minnesota is all about being nice and MYOB.  It wasn't a big issue.  Nice folks don't talk about that.  Then the fundies got all nuts and tried to push the issue on the ballot.  Yard signs up, preachers in a tizzy.  It all backfired in a huge way when the pro-gay marriage people successfully painted them as just mean and trying to run other people's business.


Ho boy did it backfire. It was beautiful. The Republicans controlled both houses of the legislature, but the governor was (and is) a Democrat. Constitutional amendment ballot initiatives sidestep the governor's office, so they went for both the gay marriage ban AND strict voter ID. Both initiatives were soundly defeated and both houses flipped solidly Democrat. After November 7th we could've just skipped Christmas.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:12:43 PM

rpm: Menopause is a pretty damn easy line to draw.


Not really.
 
2013-05-13 10:14:43 PM

jvl: Summercat: Marriage is a special group given by our legal system for multiple reasons - "Spawning children" is not main purpose, nor a requirement, of marriage. Thus the procreation aspect is a red herring, and not a rational arguement to ban gay marriage (especially since said arguement can be turned on it's head as per adoption)

You assert that procreation is not the main purpose without evidence. Second, let's assume you are right and that procreation is not the main purpose. That does not make it a red herring if an opponent does not concede that an alternative purpose is correct.

In other words, to demonstrate that your opponent is irrational, you have an extremely difficult bar to surmount: you must show that the main purpose is inarguably not procreation. That "inarguable" part is why you will not be able to succeed.

Therefore the anti-Gay Marriage argument is merely wrong and not irrational, I'm right, and Hillary Clinton (my fav) is now automatically president.


people.virginia.edu

We get it. You were on the High School debate team and played Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney as a kid. However, it doesn't make your argument even resemble correct.
 
2013-05-13 10:14:57 PM

jvl: rpm: Menopause is a pretty damn easy line to draw.

Not really.


If you're making the case that marriage has been an unequal institution for hundreds of years because of advances in fertility over the last 25, you're making a really poor case. Additionally, those same advances in fertility allow a same-sex couple to also procreate.
 
2013-05-13 10:15:24 PM

Typhoid: PsiChick: xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.

He RUNS a pray-away-the-gay camp. Seriously.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-ca nd idates-clinic/story?id=14048691#.UZGU994o7IU


:( Poor guy...
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:15:49 PM

cameroncrazy1984: jvl: you must show that the main purpose is inarguably not procreation

That's not difficult at all. 85 year old women are legally allowed to be married. Ergo, the purpose of marriage is not procreation.


I already handled this argument. I said something like: You must draw an arbitrary line somewhere blah blah blah how invasive do you want to be blah blah arbitrary blah this particular arbitrary line is as good as any.

I'm pretty sure there were blahs.  At least, that's what it sounded like in my head.,
 
2013-05-13 10:17:15 PM

jvl: You must draw an arbitrary line somewhere


But why must you? You have yet to provide a logical answer as to why the line must be drawn somewhere. Unless, I suppose, you mean that it can be drawn at two adults above the age of consent in which case I agree with you.

You didn't "handle" that argument at all.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:19:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: If you're making the case that marriage has been an unequal institution for hundreds of years because of advances in fertility over the last 25


Let me stop you there: no, I'm not making that case.

We were discussing whether opponents of Gay Marriage are irrational or merely wrong.
 
2013-05-13 10:20:13 PM

jvl: cameroncrazy1984: If you're making the case that marriage has been an unequal institution for hundreds of years because of advances in fertility over the last 25

Let me stop you there: no, I'm not making that case.

We were discussing whether opponents of Gay Marriage are irrational or merely wrong.


Oh, in that case they're irrational, mainly because they don't understand the actual history of the institution of marriage.
 
2013-05-13 10:20:42 PM

hardinparamedic: We get it. You were on the High School debate team and played Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney as a kid. However, it doesn't make your argument even resemble correct.


LOL : )
 
2013-05-13 10:21:55 PM

jvl: We were discussing whether opponents of Gay Marriage are irrational or merely wrong.


Why can't it be both?

Really. Why not both, depending on the individual. We would classify someone like the Westboro Baptist Church as both wrong and irrational. While we would classify Joe Public who has been informed of the issue only by word of mouth, and has no knowledge of homosexuality other than a few fudge-packing jokes in High School and thinks it's wrong as misinformed and wrong.

You're trying to nail-down something that is so broad that it varies from person to person in the Anti-GLBT movement.
 
2013-05-13 10:23:01 PM

PsiChick: Typhoid: PsiChick: xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.

He RUNS a pray-away-the-gay camp. Seriously.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-ca nd idates-clinic/story?id=14048691#.UZGU994o7IU

:( Poor guy...


True but it makes you wonder why he got into that line of work. It really must suck though to be that far in the closet.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:25:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: But why must you? You have yet to provide a logical answer as to why the line must be drawn somewhere. Unless, I suppose, you mean that it can be drawn at two adults above the age of consent in which case I agree with you.


Please go look at my original post where I described in depth the kinds of arbitrary distinctions that could be made. Basically marriage is a form of government welfare to a specific special-interest group.  Like most giveaways, government could rationally choose to limit who receives the welfare. Even Gay Marriage makes arbitrary but rational choice on who receives this welfare since no one is planning on giving it to bigamists.

Original post:
jvl:
 
2013-05-13 10:25:57 PM

jvl: Even Gay Marriage makes arbitrary but rational choice on who receives this welfare since no one is planning on giving it to bigamists.


It's not arbitrary at all. What makes it arbitrary in your view?
 
2013-05-13 10:26:40 PM

06Wahoo: If there is one thing this thread proves, it is that those who support this measure are mostly irrational and insulting.  How many pictures of the Bachmann's eating corndogs followed by snorts and giggles does it take for people to realize where the hate and the weakest arguments (condescension rather than rationale) really lie?


Wait - you're telling me that someone who runs a "pray-away-the-gay" camp, married to a woman who gets lobbied by Alcoa just to keep tinfoil hat sales high, is somehow more rational and less insulting than a person pointing out that Marcus Bachmann looks a bit at home noshing on a phallic object? And you're pearl-clutching over that?

That's so cute.
 
2013-05-13 10:27:05 PM
Additionally, what makes "only an adult man and a woman" rational? Especially since we've already established that those who cannot have children are allowed to be married, so you can't make the procreation argument.
 
2013-05-13 10:27:43 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: True but it makes you wonder why he got into that line of work. It really must suck though to be that far in the closet.


On the other hand, he could honestly be so delusional based on his own self-loathing of his sexual identity and refusal to deal with it that he ACTUALLY believes that it's his mission in life from God to "help" others the same way he was "helped" to be totally-not-gay.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:27:54 PM

hardinparamedic: jvl: We were discussing whether opponents of Gay Marriage are irrational or merely wrong.

Why can't it be both?


I think we can all agree that most of the opposition is irrational based on mistaken notions of history or mistaken notions about what the Bible says.  Of the rest, most have irrationally decided against Gay marriage and have come up with rational reasons for them, as humans are prone to do.
 
2013-05-13 10:28:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Additionally, what makes "only an adult man and a woman" rational? Especially since we've already established that those who cannot have children are allowed to be married, so you can't make the procreation argument.


Actually, the whole 'one woman, one man' definition is kinda new in over all historical terms.
 
2013-05-13 10:28:34 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: Raging Thespian: LlamaGirl: For sure! My husband and I were listening the whole time and it is so wonderful to see that this has passed! I'm so happy! I can't wait to go to a gay wedding. I love glitter.

Yeah, the only problem is the I'm going to have to buy, like, two dozen wedding gifts in the coming year. That shiat gets expensive, yo.

And they have to be tasteful, so no getting those gifts at Wal-Mart. The homosexuals always have such nice things.


That doesn't have to be the case. Lesbians might love a gift card to Fleet Farm.
 
2013-05-13 10:29:47 PM

GameSprocket: That doesn't have to be the case. Lesbians might love a gift card to Fleet Farm.


Consider sex toys. A quality, lasting double dong is quite an investment, and will give them happiness for years to come.

If you're feeling spend-happy, consider a good sybian for them to enjoy on their wedding night.
 
2013-05-13 10:30:29 PM

jvl: Of the rest, most have irrationally decided against Gay marriage and have come up with rational reasons for them, as humans are prone to do.


Rationalizations are not the same as rational reasons.
 
2013-05-13 10:31:34 PM
For some reason, I thout this link would lead to an article announcing to the Bachmanns getting divorced.
 
2013-05-13 10:32:12 PM

jvl: cameroncrazy1984: But why must you? You have yet to provide a logical answer as to why the line must be drawn somewhere. Unless, I suppose, you mean that it can be drawn at two adults above the age of consent in which case I agree with you.

Please go look at my original post where I described in depth the kinds of arbitrary distinctions that could be made. Basically marriage is a form of government welfare to a specific special-interest group.  Like most giveaways, government could rationally choose to limit who receives the welfare. Even Gay Marriage makes arbitrary but rational choice on who receives this welfare since no one is planning on giving it to bigamists.

Original post:
jvl:


Your argument assumes (incorrectly) that the only benefit of marriage is a financial one. You are ignoring the other benefits like being able to make legal decisions for your spouse, parental rights, general acceptance in society, etc... You know, equal rights.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:32:19 PM

cameroncrazy1984: jvl: Even Gay Marriage makes arbitrary but rational choices on who receives this welfare since no one is planning on giving it to bigamists.

It's not arbitrary at all. What makes it arbitrary in your view?


Age limits are arbitrary. Restricting marriage to two people is arbitrary. Allowing menopausal women to marry is arbitrary.

Lines must be drawn somewhere, even if it is around everyone.
 
2013-05-13 10:32:38 PM
Good, another victory for equality.  Freedom for all, not for *some*.
 
2013-05-13 10:32:54 PM

hardinparamedic: GameSprocket: That doesn't have to be the case. Lesbians might love a gift card to Fleet Farm.

Consider sex toys. A quality, lasting double dong is quite an investment, and will give them happiness for years to come.

If you're feeling spend-happy, consider a good sybian for them to enjoy on their wedding night.


And here I was just thinking about those wallets with chains on them.
 
2013-05-13 10:34:24 PM

jvl: Lines must be drawn somewhere, even if it is around everyone.


That makes no sense.
 
2013-05-13 10:34:44 PM
No, the god-like powers of denial are stronger than mankind's laws.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:35:29 PM

Girl From The North Country: Your argument assumes (incorrectly) that the only benefit of marriage is a financial one. You are ignoring the other benefits like being able to make legal decisions for your spouse, parental rights, general acceptance in society, etc... You know, equal rights.


Sure marriage is a whole basket of gifts from the government.  I simplified it to "welfare" since it's a given entitlement.

General acceptance in society will hopefully become the norm, but it will never be a right.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:36:35 PM

cameroncrazy1984: jvl: Lines must be drawn somewhere, even if it is around everyone.

That makes no sense.


A line around 100% of the population, including toddlers, is still an arbitrary line.  It's the "I can't be bothered to think about this issue" solution to drawing arbitrary lines.
 
2013-05-13 10:37:09 PM

jvl: hardinparamedic: I'll let you in on a hint: It's not Bah'ai, Atheists, Buddhists, and Muslims marching in the streets and demanding that God wants people to keep gay marriage illegal.

Well, someone isn't familiar with the general beliefs of Muslims...


Or all Christians. Hey, we Episcopalians have gay Bishops, priests, hell, our most recent priest at our church just gay married his boyfriend!
 
2013-05-13 10:37:44 PM
Well done, Minnesota!
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:39:11 PM

hardinparamedic: Consider sex toys. A quality, lasting double dong is quite an investment, and will give them happiness for years to come.


It will give them great happiness for the rest of their lives to never speak to you again.
 
2013-05-13 10:39:28 PM

cameroncrazy1984: jvl: Lines must be drawn somewhere, even if it is around everyone.

That makes no sense.


No, he's right. Lines are drawn all the time in legal capacity. Right or wrong is the question, and why they are argued in court. There is no defense for this particular one. At least not presented by jvl.
 
Rat
2013-05-13 10:43:24 PM
But if two guys get a divorce, how do they decide which one gets the lawn tractor?

© I really do miss my lawn tractor a lot more then my ex
 
2013-05-13 10:48:11 PM
Why are we summarily dismissing the religious argument against gay marriage as irrational? God may truly hate gay people and smite the world because of it. I'm completely serious. How do you know that God doesn't have his smite-filled finger pointed at America, waiting for the tipping point where he will destroy us?

If there are no rational religious arguments against gay marriage, then there are no rational religious arguments for or against anything. Or is rational religiousity simply shorthand for "policies I agree with that came as a result of religious introspection?"
 
2013-05-13 10:48:31 PM
Marcus Bachmann thread!

imageshack.us
 
2013-05-13 10:50:24 PM

mobile_home_refush: Can they legally get a divorce or is that another battle to be fought?


//sincere question
///awesome headline subby


If they can get legally married, they can legally get divorced.

No, it's not a new battle; gays in California who are legally married in the 2008 "window" are getting divorced all the time; their property is divvied up under the community property laws, and with just as much acrimony as any other couple.
 
2013-05-13 10:50:48 PM

hardinparamedic: tinfoil-hat maggie: True but it makes you wonder why he got into that line of work. It really must suck though to be that far in the closet.

On the other hand, he could honestly be so delusional based on his own self-loathing of his sexual identity and refusal to deal with it that he ACTUALLY believes that it's his mission in life from God to "help" others the same way he was "helped" to be totally-not-gay.


True and the harm he has done by running such a place is pretty unforgivable. Also he really could be not gay and just an effeminate man but I think that's pretty unlikely.
 
2013-05-13 10:53:37 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Why are we summarily dismissing the religious argument against gay marriage as irrational? God may truly hate gay people and smite the world because of it. I'm completely serious. How do you know that God doesn't have his smite-filled finger pointed at America, waiting for the tipping point where he will destroy us?

If there are no rational religious arguments against gay marriage, then there are no rational religious arguments for or against anything. Or is rational religiousity simply shorthand for "policies I agree with that came as a result of religious introspection?"


Well in the US we have this belief in the separation of church and state so laws shouldn't be based on religious principals.
 
2013-05-13 10:56:15 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Why are we summarily dismissing the religious argument against gay marriage as irrational?"


Because all religious arguments regarding any topic should be dismissed as irrational.
 
2013-05-13 10:58:32 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: hardinparamedic: tinfoil-hat maggie: True but it makes you wonder why he got into that line of work. It really must suck though to be that far in the closet.

On the other hand, he could honestly be so delusional based on his own self-loathing of his sexual identity and refusal to deal with it that he ACTUALLY believes that it's his mission in life from God to "help" others the same way he was "helped" to be totally-not-gay.

True and the harm he has done by running such a place is pretty unforgivable. Also he really could be not gay and just an effeminate man but I think that's pretty unlikely.


I honestly think the effeminate man is the case. Really effeminate as in I understand the gays and can help them.  Because, well, I'd be gay considering any other metric. Sexuality is mysterious.

I just hope he dumped a load on Michelle's chest at some point.
 
2013-05-13 10:58:33 PM
It is a sad day for certain gay people in Minnesota, for they have lost the right to not be pestered/pressured by their significant others into getting married.

Not being allowed to marry is the GREATEST EXCUSE EVER and they lost it.

But then again I am pretty anti-marriage.  I literately tell everyone that I meet who intend to get married that they should not do so.  The institution of marriage should die already.
 
2013-05-13 10:58:38 PM

kimwim: jvl: hardinparamedic: I'll let you in on a hint: It's not Bah'ai, Atheists, Buddhists, and Muslims marching in the streets and demanding that God wants people to keep gay marriage illegal.

Well, someone isn't familiar with the general beliefs of Muslims...

Or all Christians. Hey, we Episcopalians have gay Bishops, priests, hell, our most recent priest at our church just gay married his boyfriend!


I'm a member of an Evangelical Lutheran Church of America congregation that employs a gay organist and choir director. Sexual preference was not a question asked at the interviews because it has no bearing on whether the candidates were capable of fulfilling the ministries the congregation was asking them to.
 
2013-05-13 10:59:43 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: If there are no rational religious arguments against gay marriage, then there are no rational religious arguments for or against anything.


Strike the word "if" and replace "then" with "therefore" and you've nailed it.
 
2013-05-13 10:59:49 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Why are we summarily dismissing the religious argument against gay marriage as irrational? God may truly hate gay people and smite the world because of it. I'm completely serious. How do you know that God doesn't have his smite-filled finger pointed at America, waiting for the tipping point where he will destroy us?

If there are no rational religious arguments against gay marriage, then there are no rational religious arguments for or against anything. Or is rational religiousity simply shorthand for "policies I agree with that came as a result of religious introspection?"

Well in the US we have this belief in the separation of church and state so laws shouldn't be based on religious principals.


There are any number of laws that are religiously influenced but still pass constitutionality. Blue laws, obscenity laws, pornography laws, etc.
 
2013-05-13 11:00:08 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: PsiChick: Typhoid: PsiChick: xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.

He RUNS a pray-away-the-gay camp. Seriously.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-ca nd idates-clinic/story?id=14048691#.UZGU994o7IU

:( Poor guy...

True but it makes you wonder why he got into that line of work. It really must suck though to be that far in the closet.


That's why I said 'poor guy'. When you've got that many issues, damn it must suck.
 
2013-05-13 11:00:31 PM

Rat: But if two guys get a divorce, how do they decide which one gets the lawn tractor?

© I really do miss my lawn tractor a lot more then my ex


Nothing wrong with that. We spend a lot more time sitting on our lawn tractors most weeks in the summer.
 
2013-05-13 11:01:12 PM

jvl: It will give them great happiness for the rest of their lives to never speak to you again.


Speaking as an openly bisexual male, I'm sorry that your funny bone was lost in an unfortunate accident.
 
2013-05-13 11:01:47 PM
Where do we draw the line?

It's really simple, folks.

"Consenting Adults"

Frankly, I don't care if it's two, or fifty.  But that's where we draw the line.
 
2013-05-13 11:02:35 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: True and the harm he has done by running such a place is pretty unforgivable. Also he really could be not gay and just an effeminate man but I think that's pretty unlikely.


When the American Psychological Association pretty much looks at you and says you are a quack that does irreparable harm to gay people, yes. You're absolutely right.
 
2013-05-13 11:02:56 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: tinfoil-hat maggie: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Why are we summarily dismissing the religious argument against gay marriage as irrational? God may truly hate gay people and smite the world because of it. I'm completely serious. How do you know that God doesn't have his smite-filled finger pointed at America, waiting for the tipping point where he will destroy us?

If there are no rational religious arguments against gay marriage, then there are no rational religious arguments for or against anything. Or is rational religiousity simply shorthand for "policies I agree with that came as a result of religious introspection?"

Well in the US we have this belief in the separation of church and state so laws shouldn't be based on religious principals.

There are any number of laws that are religiously influenced but still pass constitutionality. Blue laws, obscenity laws, pornography laws, etc.


Hence the reason I said shouldn't not are.
 
2013-05-13 11:13:51 PM

MadCat: I'm a member of an Evangelical Lutheran Church of America congregation that employs a gay organist and choir director. Sexual preference was not a question asked at the interviews because it has no bearing on whether the candidates were capable of fulfilling the ministries the congregation was asking them to.


Nice. Our choirmaster, Head Usher, I can't tell you how many people of important things are gay at our church. We couldn't function without them. I love them all.
 
2013-05-13 11:18:53 PM
The Bachmanns are all Swiss and carry Swiss passports.  That's worse than being a sekrit Mooslem.
 
2013-05-13 11:20:46 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: tinfoil-hat maggie: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Why are we summarily dismissing the religious argument against gay marriage as irrational? God may truly hate gay people and smite the world because of it. I'm completely serious. How do you know that God doesn't have his smite-filled finger pointed at America, waiting for the tipping point where he will destroy us?

If there are no rational religious arguments against gay marriage, then there are no rational religious arguments for or against anything. Or is rational religiousity simply shorthand for "policies I agree with that came as a result of religious introspection?"

Well in the US we have this belief in the separation of church and state so laws shouldn't be based on religious principals.

There are any number of laws that are religiously influenced but still pass constitutionality. Blue laws, obscenity laws, pornography laws, etc.


But they really shouldn't be. The whole banking fiasco was legal but that doesn't mean it should have been. Lots of things are illegal for no good goddamn reason. I'm sorry if certain behaviors hurt your religious sensibilities, but if they're not actively hurting you or your ability engage in your religion--on your own, you have no right to impose it on me or anyone else--you really don't have an actual argument beyond "I don't like it, no sir," which isn't an argument in any respect.

The religious argument against gay marriage has the easiest response of all of them: if you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Done.
 
2013-05-13 11:21:42 PM
Here's a good link for a state-by-state breakdown on where the fight for marriage equality stands:

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/

It appears that Illinois could be the next to join the correct side of history. But New Jersey could overturn Christie's veto at some point in the near future, as well.
 
2013-05-13 11:21:49 PM

aerojockey: mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

Because all Republicans mindless robots who are only programmed to obey directives from their party leaders and have no will of their own, amirite?


All except one, apparently.
 
2013-05-13 11:23:46 PM

vudukungfu: Sen. Dan Hall, later speaking against the bill, expressed his fears about the legislation, saying, "Next, I believe we will be forced to believe what we don't."

imokwiththis.jpg


Is he seriously arguing we're taking away his freedom to take away the freedom of others? I wonder what it's like to be so incredibly self centered as to think someone else being allowed to make personal choices that have no impact on anyone not personally involved in the situation is one step away from mind control.
 
2013-05-13 11:24:58 PM

jvl: Summercat: Marriage is a special group given by our legal system for multiple reasons - "Spawning children" is not main purpose, nor a requirement, of marriage. Thus the procreation aspect is a red herring, and not a rational arguement to ban gay marriage (especially since said arguement can be turned on it's head as per adoption)

You assert that procreation is not the main purpose without evidence. Second, let's assume you are right and that procreation is not the main purpose. That does not make it a red herring if an opponent does not concede that an alternative purpose is correct.

In other words, to demonstrate that your opponent is irrational, you have an extremely difficult bar to surmount: you must show that the main purpose is inarguably not procreation. That "inarguable" part is why you will not be able to succeed.


Incorrect.

1) There is nothing on the legal books that marriage is for procreation, nor is there anything on the books mandating that married couples procreate, or that all procreation must take place in a marriage.

2) There is no evidence or support for the purpose of marriage, as per the argument you posited  being primarily for procreation. The institution of marriage has it's origins in property laws and the transference of inheritance both in goods and in authority/power.

3) Further evidence for my argument (That the argument you posited is neither rational nor logical) is simply pointing out the lack of evidence to support the opposing argument. When someone makes a claim (as you did when putting forth this argument), it does not fall upon others to refute the claim, it is up to the claimant to support it. The burden of proof, as it's called, would fall upon anyone trying to claim that the institution of marriage is primarily for procreation. That is not an argument that can hold water, as per 1) and 2).

While I can understand how people come to these conclusions, and I can see their thought processes behind them, that does not mean they are rational or they hold up to scrutiny. People hold irrational beliefs all the time, and function as if they were true - which is perfectly fine, up to the point where they try to treat their irrational conclusions as rational, and try to force their conclusions upon others who disagree.

Basically, while the 'Procreation' argument sounds good in a soundbite or as an openning salvo, it cannot defend itself from examination of the claims it makes, and does not bear under scrutiny. Further, while it might have a veneer of rationality, it is primarily used (as can be seen by evidence) by people who have no other arguments left to oppose same sex marriages, outside of "The Gays are icky" and "My version of the Christian Bible says it's a sin", neither of which can be honestly accepted as a premise for a law in the United States.

Which brings me back, back, back to the begining of my conversation with you, in that I have not seen any rational arguments against same sex marriage. Please note, I did not say "Ones that people don't honestly believe in" because I know better. There are people who think we never went to the Moon, and that the Illuminati control the world, and that the Gold Standard is awesome.
 
2013-05-13 11:25:04 PM

PsiChick: That's why I said 'poor guy'. When you've got that many issues, damn it must suck.


Yea, I'm guessing his career came about because everyone thought/knew he was gay and well that just wouldn't do so he picked the totally "not gay" career path.
/It's sad but his work really harms others so I don't know.
//Poor hypocrite is closer to the truth.
 
2013-05-13 11:31:05 PM

hardinparamedic: tinfoil-hat maggie: True and the harm he has done by running such a place is pretty unforgivable. Also he really could be not gay and just an effeminate man but I think that's pretty unlikely.

When the American Psychological Association pretty much looks at you and says you are a quack that does irreparable harm to gay people, yes. You're absolutely right.


I've read several of the stories way back when online of teens that went through places like that, it's tragic that places like that can exist. Not only does it hurt the person being sent but it reinforces the families belief that being gay is wrong.
 
2013-05-13 11:35:25 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: I've read several of the stories way back when online of teens that went through places like that, it's tragic that places like that can exist. Not only does it hurt the person being sent but it reinforces the families belief that being gay is wrong.


I've read a couple too. Those places generally tend to be suicide-inducing hellholes rife with physical and sexual abuse.

The last part seems to be camps for troubled teens in general, and not just religious BS camps for praying the gay away. Sexual predators go after these kids because of how vulnerable they are.
 
2013-05-13 11:43:26 PM
Just one more reason I love my state!!

/talk radio said right now MN is the most radical government in the history of America :)
 
2013-05-13 11:53:58 PM

Doogles4221: Just one more reason I love my state!!

/talk radio said right now MN is the most radical government in the history of America :)


God forbid that an actual socialistic party manage to win control of a state legislature..
 
2013-05-14 12:01:15 AM
He's a fruit and she's a retard.
 
2013-05-14 12:06:20 AM

mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.


In a firefight, it doesn't matter if you are straight as long as you can shoot straight.

In a vote on civil rights, it doesn't matter whether you're left or right as long as you're on the right side of history.
 
2013-05-14 12:14:14 AM

ramblinwreck: Girl From The North Country: It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.

LOLWUT


pretty simple really

In the election in November, there was a public vote for a law that said marriage is between a man and a women, that lost, now less then a year later we passed a marriage equality law allowing gays to marry
 
2013-05-14 12:20:06 AM

Girl From The North Country: This is my senator's reason behind voting against the measure.

If you want limited government, Hann explains, you need "moral virtue" and "discipline" and other verities that "reinforce the idea of individuals being accountable."
It's Hann's view that marriage is fundamental to these verities.

The cognitive dissonance makes my head spin


I can provide your senator with all the discipline he could ever dream of.  I mean I don't normally top men, but in this case, I can heat up the fire place pokers.
 
2013-05-14 12:35:46 AM

Begoggle: xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

[i581.photobucket.com image 340x454]


She's a hate-mongering ignorant twunt who has no place being a representative in politics for anyone with half a brain.  Any potential dignity that should be afforded her as we would a normal and decent person is suspended on the basis that she has demonstrated a willingness and desire to make her closed-minded religious-themed message and initiative as law.

You'd get better traction White Knighting for Hitler.
 
2013-05-14 12:40:32 AM

hardinparamedic: tinfoil-hat maggie: I've read several of the stories way back when online of teens that went through places like that, it's tragic that places like that can exist. Not only does it hurt the person being sent but it reinforces the families belief that being gay is wrong.

I've read a couple too. Those places generally tend to be suicide-inducing hellholes rife with physical and sexual abuse.

The last part seems to be camps for troubled teens in general, and not just religious BS camps for praying the gay away. Sexual predators go after these kids because of how vulnerable they are.


It seems to make complete sense for Marcus Bachmann to run a "pray away the gay" camp. He looks at each group of kids, sizes up the ones upon whom the camp's indoctrination is least likely to work and BAM! - He's got a date for Friday night.

Kidding aside (and I'm not seriously suggesting Marcus Bachmann is a pedophilic predator of any kind), these camps are some truly twisted shiat.

"Son, quit crying and wipe your face. You are going to this camp and you will get rid of that EVILNESS that lurks inside of you. If you can't make it through this, you're not only going to burn in the fires of Hades for eternity, but I'm buying you a first class ticket on the Hell Express because no son of mine is gonna be gay. Now, quit arguing that this is just 'who you are' and 'God made you this way' before I smack you around some more. How would you like it if I told all your friends at school that you're a queer? Think the ass kicking I just gave you was rough? Wait til the football team gets done with your pansy ass..."

/Yes, completely made up
//Not out of the realm of possibility in MANY households
 
2013-05-14 12:41:14 AM

Novart: Abox: The anti-gay movement is populated by two kinds of people - women who fear abandonment and resentful closeted gay men. Michele's worst fear may finally come true.

Really, no one just flat out hates gay people? There is no religious opposition?


I'm not talking about liking or hating individuals, I'm talking about denying rights to the whole group.  I guess if you're really smooth-brained you might jump on the bandwagon out of religious fear, but I think most people use "religious opposition" to not admit being in those two categories.
 
2013-05-14 12:49:12 AM

aerojockey: mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

Because all Republicans mindless robots who are only programmed to obey directives from their party leaders and have no will of their own, amirite?


It's funny. There once was a time when, across this great land, legislation was passed with many, many votes both for and against measures which did not solely reflect the party membership of the legislators. There were many who crossed the divide and voted for legislation that (in theory) made sense no matter which party had proposed it. The ratio of silly bills (repealing Obamacare, forbidding Sharia Law, forbidding Title 21 or Derp 21) to at least marginally sensible bills was infinitesimally small.

Maybe we can get back to those times. And I can start wearing that onion in my belt again. It was a good fashion.
 
2013-05-14 01:15:25 AM

kptchris: He's a fruit and she's a retard.

nut.

They're just a granola bar of happiness.
 
2013-05-14 01:33:45 AM

Skarekrough: Begoggle: xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

[i581.photobucket.com image 340x454]

She's a hate-mongering ignorant twunt who has no place being a representative in politics for anyone with half a brain.  Any potential dignity that should be afforded her as we would a normal and decent person is suspended on the basis that she has demonstrated a willingness and desire to make her closed-minded religious-themed message and initiative as law.

You'd get better traction White Knighting for Hitler.


He was something of an early environmentalist.

Ok, now someone name a positive quality of Bachmann.
 
2013-05-14 01:42:40 AM

xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.


That he's gay is the worst kept secret in Washington.
 
2013-05-14 01:49:30 AM
Not a fan of another state passing ghey marriage, but if Marcus Bachman comes out of the closet it will be hilarious
 
2013-05-14 01:52:52 AM

Oldiron_79: Not a fan of another state passing ghey marriage, but if Marcus Bachman comes out of the closet it will be hilarious


So you are pretty much a complete asshole then, eh?

Nm, I see you are a troll, as per your profile.  Carry on then I suppose.
 
2013-05-14 02:11:37 AM

Oldiron_79: Not a fan of another state passing ghey marriage, but if Marcus Bachman comes out of the closet it will be hilarious


Why? How does it affect you?
 
2013-05-14 02:19:05 AM

Oldiron_79: Not a fan of another state passing ghey marriage, but if Marcus Bachman comes out of the closet it will be hilarious


Not really. Much like a rock star dying of an overdose, a family values Republican being outed is cliche at this point.
 
2013-05-14 02:47:19 AM
FTFA: The lead Republican supporter of the bill, Sen. Branden Petersen, spoke during the closing arguments about his reasons for working with Dibble on the bill.

"I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.


Branden Peterson? Sounds like a good name for a gay pr0n actor. Maybe the Republican senator is beginning to feel his own fabulousness. Good for him having the balls to vote his conscience on the bill.

/NTTAWWT
 
2013-05-14 02:55:06 AM

stoli n coke: Oldiron_79: Not a fan of another state passing ghey marriage, but if Marcus Bachman comes out of the closet it will be hilarious

Not really. Much like a rock star dying of an overdose, a family values Republican being outed is cliche at this point.


Maybe him and ole widestance can get hitched now
 
2013-05-14 03:07:19 AM

jvl: Bane of Broone: Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel.

I see you have the "demonize people who disagree with you" part of being human down pat.  Good job! But you probably should have avoided the whole "jump to conclusion" part where you accuse me of not being a supporter of Gay Marriage.

/ I will choose Free Will!


I'm noticing that you aren't addressing his point, you're just accusing him of 'demonizing' you.  Also you seem to be confused about what 'demonizing' means.  Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are persecuting you.
 
2013-05-14 03:11:39 AM

Martian_Astronomer: So, if I understand the Michele Bachmann's line of reasoning correctly, the first thing that's going to happen is that millions of straight marriages are going to be destroyed because now it's possible for dudes to marry other dudes, which is what they really wanted all along. Straight marriage was the only thing keeping them from getting down on one knee and proposing to the pool boy, you see. Next, as I understand it, God will begin to send plagues and other natural disasters to express his displeasure, as well a few large scale incidents of violence. Finally, since homosexuality destroys every culture that embraces it, Minnesota will fall to a massive invasion of gay barbarians from the north, just like ancient Rome, if the Huns had been gay Canadian lumberjacks.

Did I miss anything?


You forgot the dinosaur-riding nazis, but otherwise spot on.
 
2013-05-14 03:31:11 AM

stoli n coke: Oldiron_79: Not a fan of another state passing ghey marriage, but if Marcus Bachman comes out of the closet it will be hilarious

Not really. Much like a rock star dying of an overdose, a family values Republican being outed is cliche at this point.


It's to the point where it's such a cliche that tonight my sister was talking about how much she hates the pastor at her boyfriend's megachurch and was like, "I'm praying that he gets caught with a male prostitute."
 
2013-05-14 03:56:24 AM

rynthetyn: stoli n coke: Oldiron_79: Not a fan of another state passing ghey marriage, but if Marcus Bachman comes out of the closet it will be hilarious

Not really. Much like a rock star dying of an overdose, a family values Republican being outed is cliche at this point.

It's to the point where it's such a cliche that tonight my sister was talking about how much she hates the pastor at her boyfriend's megachurch and was like, "I'm praying that he gets caught with a male prostitute."


Wow, can she just go to a different mega church? Maybe if that's not right just hire the prostitute : )
/You have to admit that's pretty strange.
 
2013-05-14 04:36:35 AM

06Wahoo: If there is one thing this thread proves, it is that those who support this measure are mostly irrational and insulting.  How many pictures of the Bachmann's eating corndogs followed by snorts and giggles does it take for people to realize where the hate and the weakest arguments (condescension rather than rationale) really lie?


i42.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-14 05:00:13 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: stoli n coke: Oldiron_79: Not a fan of another state passing ghey marriage, but if Marcus Bachman comes out of the closet it will be hilarious

Not really. Much like a rock star dying of an overdose, a family values Republican being outed is cliche at this point.

It's to the point where it's such a cliche that tonight my sister was talking about how much she hates the pastor at her boyfriend's megachurch and was like, "I'm praying that he gets caught with a male prostitute."

Wow, can she just go to a different mega church? Maybe if that's not right just hire the prostitute : )
/You have to admit that's pretty strange.


Her boyfriend is foreign from a country where Christianity is the minority religion. Because of that, he doesn't have the context to pick up on why the constant string of religious right talking points is not just a case of," every church has something you'll disagree with." He likes the people he knows there and the volunteer work they do in the community and has none of the baggage of growing up in the culture wars since churches where he's from, you just ignore the stupid because they can't actually do it.

So, my sister has taken to hoping this pastor becomes the cliché.
 
2013-05-14 05:26:36 AM

rynthetyn: tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: stoli n coke: Oldiron_79: Not a fan of another state passing ghey marriage, but if Marcus Bachman comes out of the closet it will be hilarious

Not really. Much like a rock star dying of an overdose, a family values Republican being outed is cliche at this point.

It's to the point where it's such a cliche that tonight my sister was talking about how much she hates the pastor at her boyfriend's megachurch and was like, "I'm praying that he gets caught with a male prostitute."

Wow, can she just go to a different mega church? Maybe if that's not right just hire the prostitute : )
/You have to admit that's pretty strange.

Her boyfriend is foreign from a country where Christianity is the minority religion. Because of that, he doesn't have the context to pick up on why the constant string of religious right talking points is not just a case of," every church has something you'll disagree with." He likes the people he knows there and the volunteer work they do in the community and has none of the baggage of growing up in the culture wars since churches where he's from, you just ignore the stupid because they can't actually do it.

So, my sister has taken to hoping this pastor becomes the cliché.


Alright I seem to remember when my parents and it seems most everyone in that church wasn't fond of a new minister. Granted small church and everyone loved the guy that retired, but the whole mega church thing is so weird t me, I don't think I'll ever understand it.

Oh and I once dated a guy that was a drummer in a christen rock band (that was his big paying gig) played mega churches and those retreats and all, huge coke meth head, I didn't realize, thankfully I had a friend get me out of that.
 
2013-05-14 05:30:47 AM

CliChe Guevara: PsiChick: xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.

 THIS.

 The guy still or at least up until recently ran some sort of operation that tried to 'correct' other gay men to straight, obsesses about the subject constantly, and is worried that SSM will break up traditional marriages because men in traditional marriages will now feel empowered to run off with other men.
 Tell me again how it is just homophobia that people think the guy has some orientation issues.


Yeah, yeah. And right wingers always find rationalizations of why their hatred of blacks/gays/women is okay in their specific cases as well. If you attack him for running "pray away the gay" camps I am right with you, but that is barely ever mentioned - until like in this case people start getting defensive about how they have been called out for making fun of him purely for being gay.
 
2013-05-14 05:37:43 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: stoli n coke: Oldiron_79: Not a fan of another state passing ghey marriage, but if Marcus Bachman comes out of the closet it will be hilarious

Not really. Much like a rock star dying of an overdose, a family values Republican being outed is cliche at this point.

It's to the point where it's such a cliche that tonight my sister was talking about how much she hates the pastor at her boyfriend's megachurch and was like, "I'm praying that he gets caught with a male prostitute."

Wow, can she just go to a different mega church? Maybe if that's not right just hire the prostitute : )
/You have to admit that's pretty strange.

Her boyfriend is foreign from a country where Christianity is the minority religion. Because of that, he doesn't have the context to pick up on why the constant string of religious right talking points is not just a case of," every church has something you'll disagree with." He likes the people he knows there and the volunteer work they do in the community and has none of the baggage of growing up in the culture wars since churches where he's from, you just ignore the stupid because they can't actually do it.

So, my sister has taken to hoping this pastor becomes the cliché.

Alright I seem to remember when my parents and it seems most everyone in that church wasn't fond of a new minister. Granted small church and everyone loved the guy that retired, but the whole mega church thing is so weird t me, I don't think I'll ever understand it.

Oh and I once dated a guy that was a drummer in a christen rock band (that was his big paying gig) played mega churches and those retreats and all, huge coke meth head, I didn't realize, thankfully I had a friend get me out of that.


Yeah, I don't understand the megachurch thing either. I went to a college with fewer than 1000 students, the idea of a church with 20 thousand members is nuts to me.
 
2013-05-14 05:56:55 AM

rynthetyn: Yeah, I don't understand the megachurch thing either. I went to a college with fewer than 1000 students, the idea of a church with 20 thousand members is nuts to me.


Yea, I mean I don't consider myself christen but my parents are and the church they go to(Presbyterian) they chose because most of their friend were going there and it's a good social group for them and they all know each other, I really don't get the mega churches though. I mean from my POV the only good thing is the sense of community but in a church that big you might as well go to a sporting event.
/Sorry just my 2 cents
 
2013-05-14 07:08:10 AM

jvl: Questioning the masculinity of anti-gay marriage folks is not a sensible way of supporting gay marriage.

Some people just want to yell at their opponents and don't give a flying fark about actually getting things done.


So you believe that to b masculine is to be straight?
 
2013-05-14 08:17:10 AM

AccuJack: Sen. Dan Hall, later speaking against the bill, expressed his fears about the legislation, saying, "Next, I believe we will be forced to believe what we don't."

Providing some of the most heated rhetoric of the debate, Hall said, "People say, 'Don't you want to be on the right side of history?' The truth is I'm more concerned about being on the right side of eternity."

It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

Uh... wut?

So he's saying that passing a bill to ensure equality, something that should be guaranteed in our country, is going to hurt businesses and confuse children more than things like the emancipation of slaves, women's suffrage, prohibition...?

Way to elect an idiot Lakeville et. al.


The bigot mind works like this:

-The civil war was brother turning against brother and a nation at war with itself because Certain Folks* couldn't just politely ignore Certain Things**.  Now we're changing the rules and starting a battle instead of leaving things as they were because those gays can't just sit down and shut up and take one for the team so we can continue to have peace and quiet.

-Businesses will be hurt, because all those christians will pack up and move away instead of staying and accepting that other people have rights.  Just like all those other states where that didn't happen.

-Children will be told by The Homosexual Agenda™ that being gay is superior to being straight, and be sexually confused by the child-molesting gay army of evangelical gay missionaries.

*damn dirty libtards
**slavery
/insert predictable joke about "gay missionary"
 
2013-05-14 08:48:44 AM

nmrsnr: And once again, Nate Silver is a wizard.

He put forward a model in 2009 for which year each state would no longer support banning gay marriage. For Minnesota? 2013.


And yet, Wisconsin shows that it will turn in 2012, but it's headed further into the abyss.  In fact, in 2006 a Constitutional Amendment was passed banning gay marriage, so by 2012 that would have been a miraculous feat to get that passed by 2/3 majority in two consecutive sessions supporting gay marriage after the people voted to ban gay marriage only a few years before.
 
2013-05-14 09:09:35 AM
Proud of my state, and my representative who voted for gay marriage even though he comes from a very bigoted district and may have lost any chance at re-election.
 
2013-05-14 09:13:29 AM

Girl From The North Country: It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.


Minnesotan's are quite libertarian really and they are extremely passive aggressive.  Piss them off and feel their wrath.  I had a feeling that when the representatives from the white racists districts put that shiat on the ballot for an amendment that it would turn around and bite them in their ass. It showed the rest of us just how discriminated they are in our state.
 
2013-05-14 09:16:27 AM

xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.


You do realize that Mr. Bachmann is a self-proclaimed gay man that was saved by Jesus.......she's used it as a campaign ploy before in her anti-gay rhetoric.
 
2013-05-14 10:01:07 AM

jake3988: Providing some of the most heated rhetoric of the debate, Hall said, "People say, 'Don't you want to be on the right side of history?' The truth is I'm more concerned about being on the right side of eternity."
=============================================

Considering this is what most christians believe, I'd rather party in hell.


Most Americans are Christian.
Most Americans support marriage equality.
You may be mistakenly equating "most Christians" with "most outspoken conservative evangelicals".
 
2013-05-14 10:16:04 AM
Legal marijuana; legal gay marriage; President is a black dude...wonder if there are statistics for an increase in sheer heart attacks lately?
 
2013-05-14 10:33:04 AM

jvl: Questioning the masculinity of anti-gay marriage folks is not a sensible way of supporting gay marriage.


So either you're just messing with us, or this is the first time you've ever heard anything about Marcus Bachmann. The dude doth protest too much.
 
2013-05-14 11:50:05 AM

h0tsauce: jake3988: Providing some of the most heated rhetoric of the debate, Hall said, "People say, 'Don't you want to be on the right side of history?' The truth is I'm more concerned about being on the right side of eternity."
=============================================

Considering this is what most christians believe, I'd rather party in hell.

Most Americans are Christian.
Most Americans support marriage equality.
You may be mistakenly equating "most Christians" with "most outspoken conservative evangelicals".


Mary Anne Case of the University of Chicago makes an interesting point about why most Catholics are ok with gay marriage but why most evangelical protestants do not:

Panel Discussion on Gay Marriage
 
2013-05-14 11:56:11 AM

the_foo: jvl: Questioning the masculinity of anti-gay marriage folks is not a sensible way of supporting gay marriage.

So either you're just messing with us, or this is the first time you've ever heard anything about Marcus Bachmann. The dude doth protest too much.


Given his behavior in this thread, I'd say pedantic concern troll.
 
2013-05-14 11:57:16 AM

vygramul: h0tsauce: jake3988: Providing some of the most heated rhetoric of the debate, Hall said, "People say, 'Don't you want to be on the right side of history?' The truth is I'm more concerned about being on the right side of eternity."
=============================================

Considering this is what most christians believe, I'd rather party in hell.

Most Americans are Christian.
Most Americans support marriage equality.
You may be mistakenly equating "most Christians" with "most outspoken conservative evangelicals".

Mary Anne Case of the University of Chicago makes an interesting point about why most Catholics are ok with gay marriage but why most evangelical protestants do not:

Panel Discussion on Gay Marriage


The relevant point starts at about 35:00.
 
2013-05-14 01:48:19 PM

mpirooz: aerojockey: mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

Because all Republicans mindless robots who are only programmed to obey directives from their party leaders and have no will of their own, amirite?

No, because that's just stupid. But it happens so rarely that it is quite surprising and relieving. Is that okay?


No.  This is not something remotely rare enough that you need to let it "sink in".  That's ridiculous.

I've read about at least a half a dozen Republicans, including some notables and a few still serving, that came out in favor of gay marriage and even more than came out in favor of gay marriage.  Senators Rob Portman and Mark Kirk said they supported it months ago.  And it was a Republican group that brought about the injunction that stopped DADT.

You think it's rare because you want it to be rare, not because it is.  (Which is not to say it's common, either.  I mean, let's not get carried away.  But if you need to let it "sink in" you're not paying attention.)
 
2013-05-14 02:00:48 PM

aerojockey: I've read about at least a half a dozen Republicans, including some notables and a few still serving, that came out in favor of gay marriage


6. A few still serving.

Out of 282 in the House and Senate, not to mention state houses and governors around the country.

And it's not rare?
 
2013-05-14 03:34:13 PM

RandomRandom: Marcus Bachman really is gay. He's as gay as gay can be gay. He's Oscar Wilde gay.


i244.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-14 07:28:32 PM

vygramul: aerojockey: I've read about at least a half a dozen Republicans, including some notables and a few still serving, that came out in favor of gay marriage

6. A few still serving.

Out of 282 in the House and Senate, not to mention state houses and governors around the country.

And it's not rare?


6/282 is 2%.  2% isn't rare, no.  Certainly not even close to being rare enough to need time to let something sink in.  It is uncommon, yes.  State houses are generally irrelevant newswise; they are rarely important enough to warrant a national news story when one does something like come out in favor of gay marriage.  There can be (and probably are, though I do not know for sure) dozens of Republican state legislators on record as supporting it, and we might never hear of it.
 
2013-05-14 09:51:06 PM
Come senators, congressmen please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside and it's ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
And don't criticize what you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast
The slow one now will later be fast
As the present now will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin'
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.


a.imageshack.us
carryabigsticker.com
 
2013-05-14 09:53:25 PM
From another article: Bachmann later released a statement, saying she was "disappointed" that the legislation had passed and arguing that it "denies religious liberty to people who believe in traditional marriage and who do not want to be forced to violate their conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs."

Remember, folks, it's okay to deny people their rights so so long as religious people don't feel offended, and two people of the same sex getting married forces people to violate their conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs.
 
2013-05-14 09:54:59 PM

icam: From another article: Bachmann later released a statement, saying she was "disappointed" that the legislation had passed and arguing that it "denies religious liberty to people who believe in traditional marriage and who do not want to be forced to violate their conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs."

Remember, folks, it's okay to deny people their rights so so long as religious people don't feel offended, and two people of the same sex getting married forces people to violate their conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs.


FTFM so I don't violate any Farkers' conscience and sincerely held rules of posting beliefs
 
Ehh
2013-05-14 11:28:15 PM

jvl: Almost Everybody Poops: California, which famously voted for President Obama and High-Speed Rail while voting to ban gay marriage...


I'm from California, the land of Prop 13, the election and recall of Gray Davis, of Nixon and Reagan and hippies and Issa, and yes, actually voting for High-Speed Rail. As Molly Ivins observed, wherever she went in this country, people would tell her that their local politics is the weirdest, craziest politics in the whole nation, and they'd be right every time.
 
2013-05-15 12:16:19 AM

icam: From another article: Bachmann later released a statement, saying she was "disappointed" that the legislation had passed and arguing that it "denies religious liberty to people who believe in traditional marriage and who do not want to be forced to violate their conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs."

Remember, folks, it's okay to deny people their rights so so long as religious people don't feel offended, and two people of the same sex getting married forces people to violate their conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs.


Re: the part I bolded: THEN DON'T GET GAY MARRIED.
 
Displayed 374 of 374 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report