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.

(National Review)   Almost there: nationalizing gay marriage. Then, the next step will be churches have to perform homosexual marriage or they will lose their tax-exempt status   (nationalreview.com) divider line 270
    More: Scary, Justice Kennedy, Charles Krauthammer, abortion law, supreme court ruling, same-sex marriages, majority opinion, DOMA, special reports  
•       •       •

1910 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2013 at 11:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-27 09:24:10 AM  
All movement from status quo goes straight down a slippery slope to a pool filled with the stone knives of political strawment.

/Not even Yoo would defend how I just tortured those words
 
2013-06-27 09:30:03 AM  
Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.
 
2013-06-27 09:30:26 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: /Not even Yoo would defend how I just tortured those words


Especially the word 'strawment'.  *strawmen*
 
2013-06-27 09:31:58 AM  
And turtle-f*cking! Don't forget the turtle-f*cking!
 
2013-06-27 09:35:30 AM  
This thread should be conducted in caveman-speak
 
2013-06-27 09:36:54 AM  
WHEN OOG TAKE STEP EAST OOG END UP IN CHINA
OOG LESSON:  NO TAKE STEP EAST
 
2013-06-27 09:41:40 AM  

James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.


Not only that, but imagine what it's like for the handful of bigoted churches that won't perform mixed-race weddings these days?  Sure, they still exist and the Evil Gub'mint doesn't harass them... but their congregations are all 90+ and their few indoctrinated children, so they're slowly dying anyway.  Give it a few decades and see how many hold out.  Meanwhile, you may not get the one you wanted, but you should be able to find one... if you live in the right state.

My prediction is that the 12 states where it's legal will begin to see a resurgence, a real economic recovery as all the excess talent and experience in the homosexual population slowly relocates to them.
 
2013-06-27 09:45:33 AM  
Of all the stupid, awful arguments against marriage equality, I've always found this to be one of the most brainless.
 
2013-06-27 09:52:00 AM  
 
2013-06-27 09:53:34 AM  

WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!


Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.
 
2013-06-27 09:57:41 AM  

James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.


Yup that's odd.  It's a fine idea- right now they don't pay taxes and still basically do what they want.
 
2013-06-27 10:00:07 AM  
"So where do you want to have our wedding, honey?"
"Well, we could do it at the church that we actually attend, with our minister whom we've known for years..."
"Or?"
"Let's do it at a place we've never been to, that openly despises us, conducted by a guy who is going to be scowling and pissed off during the entire ceremony!"
"It will be such a magical day!"
 
2013-06-27 10:13:37 AM  

Sgt Otter: "So where do you want to have our wedding, honey?"
"Well, we could do it at the church that we actually attend, with our minister whom we've known for years..."
"Or?"
"Let's do it at a place we've never been to, that openly despises us, conducted by a guy who is going to be scowling and pissed off during the entire ceremony!"
"It will be such a magical day!"


There was a great story a while back about a couple who got married overseas in...Mauritius? Madagascar?  And the local minister hated tourist weddings, and just smiled while swearing at them the whole time in his native tongue, calling the bride a whore, etc.
 
2013-06-27 10:17:10 AM  
1955: This school desegregation decision will mean blacks have equal rights in all 50 states!

Pretty soon white waitresses will have to serve negros at lunch counters and Negroes will be able to sit wherever they want on the bus.
 
2013-06-27 10:42:03 AM  
In exactly the same manner that churches have been able to lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform mixed-race marriages, ever since Virginia v Loving was handed down.
 
2013-06-27 11:18:01 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.

Yup that's odd.  It's a fine idea- right now they don't pay taxes and still basically do what they want.


Basically? They organized an entire event last year recording church leaders advocating for candidates and mailed them to the IRS, daring them to revoke tax-exempt status, and nothing happened.
 
2013-06-27 11:36:28 AM  

WI241TH: Basically? They organized an entire event last year recording church leaders advocating for candidates and mailed them to the IRS, daring them to revoke tax-exempt status, and nothing happened.


Didn't hear about that, but I don't doubt it.  You have a link?
 
2013-06-27 11:44:19 AM  
For tax exempt status, no church is required to do anything but stay black and die (and not engage in political activity).
 
2013-06-27 11:44:37 AM  
Hey. You want to fix a budget problem? Simple solution: Tax the church. They've been getting a free ride for far too long, and not just in American history. I'm all for it, whether they break down and accept marriage equality or not.
 
2013-06-27 11:45:01 AM  
Churches finally having to catch up with the 21st Century?

pjmedia.com
 
2013-06-27 11:45:45 AM  
Are churches REQUIRED to perform any wedding?
 
2013-06-27 11:45:49 AM  
When did the Catholic church lose its tax exempt status for refusing to marry divorced people?

Oh, they haven't? You mean the mouth breathers arguments against marriage equality are all bullshait? I am shocked.
 
2013-06-27 11:46:22 AM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: There was a great story a while back about a couple who got married overseas in...Mauritius? Madagascar? And the local minister hated tourist weddings, and just smiled while swearing at them the whole time in his native tongue, calling the bride a whore, etc.


Sounds like a real man of God.
 
2013-06-27 11:46:31 AM  

James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.


You cannot even be a non-greek guest if it is a orthodox greek wedding
 
2013-06-27 11:47:04 AM  

kronicfeld: And turtle-f*cking! Don't forget the turtle-f*cking!


"My #1 priority is to make sure that my cornhole stays a one-way avenue." -Mitch McConnell (tuR-tle)
 
2013-06-27 11:47:04 AM  
headline neq article.

anyway,
what about polygamy ?
 
2013-06-27 11:47:10 AM  

BunkoSquad: This thread should be conducted in caveman-speak


i161.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-27 11:47:48 AM  

max_pooper: When did the Catholic church lose its tax exempt status for refusing to marry divorced people?

Oh, they haven't? You mean the mouth breathers arguments against marriage equality are all bullshait? I am shocked.


To be fair, Krauthammer  breaths through a tube, not his mouth.
 
2013-06-27 11:48:02 AM  

BunkoSquad: This thread should be conducted in caveman-speak


I thought it was a libertarian that thought no new political ideas for more than two thousand years that started that (apart from theirs), rather than the some religious people's view that no new valid moral ideas have happened since (or before) their particular holy book was created.
 
2013-06-27 11:48:41 AM  
I can't think of a better way to spend a most cherished day, as I pledge my eternal love and commitment to my chosen life mate, than by rubbing it other people's faces.

Not.
 
2013-06-27 11:49:21 AM  
That would be awesome, but no, that won't be happening.
 
2013-06-27 11:49:36 AM  

BunkoSquad: This thread should be conducted in caveman-speak


COK RAW SPUNK POOT ALL NITE, NEED MARRIAGE. JIZZ WINDOW GROK AFTER NUPTIAL, LIMO NEED SQUEEGIE, RIBBONS OF SHAME.  AND SPOOGE.
 
2013-06-27 11:50:18 AM  

monoski: James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.

You cannot even be a non-greek guest if it is a orthodox greek wedding


Hey now!  I went to one.

Though it makes me wonder if Uncle Joey had to convert.  It was a long time ago.

I like how everything in the ceremony was in threes, and liked the symbolism of the head ring thingies tied together.
 
2013-06-27 11:50:56 AM  
Or, we could just take away their tax-exempt status, period. They seem to be cool with ignoring that "render unto Caesar" bit by the guy they claim to follow anyway.
 
2013-06-27 11:51:20 AM  

utah dude: what about polygamy ?


as long as it's primarily practiced by men who want a harem, you can make a pretty rational argument against it being bad for society.
 
2013-06-27 11:52:20 AM  
So they'll be required to perform gay weddings but they'll still be allowed to refuse to perform weddings for straight couples that don't meet their requirments?
 
2013-06-27 11:53:06 AM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: There was a great story a while back about a couple who got married overseas in...Mauritius? Madagascar?  And the local minister hated tourist weddings, and just smiled while swearing at them the whole time in his native tongue, calling the bride a whore, etc.


haha that's got to be one of the most shiat that didn't happen things i've ever heard
 
2013-06-27 11:53:39 AM  
The point of a separate of Church and State is that it works both ways, which is something fundies on the Church side should keep in mind every time they think there shouldn't be one.
 
2013-06-27 11:54:56 AM  

Jackson Herring: God Is My Co-Pirate: There was a great story a while back about a couple who got married overseas in...Mauritius? Madagascar?  And the local minister hated tourist weddings, and just smiled while swearing at them the whole time in his native tongue, calling the bride a whore, etc.

haha that's got to be one of the most shiat that didn't happen things i've ever heard


Well, there is this: http://storyful.com/stories/605
 
2013-06-27 11:55:10 AM  
Reading NRO is like reading the old Jeanne Dixon predictions in Star Magazine.

"Larry Hagman and Joan Collins will wed in real life and the ceremony will be filmed for a combined episode of Dallas and Dynasty to be aired on all THREE networks."
"Soviet Premier Andropov will reveal he's obsessed with the music of KC and the Sunshine Band, inviting them for a concert in Red Square"'
 
2013-06-27 11:55:58 AM  

coeyagi: For tax exempt status, no church is required to do anything but stay black and die (and not engage in political activity).


So you mean the churches need a new paint job? I dunno, I kinda prefer my churches a nice shade of ecru.
 
2013-06-27 11:56:16 AM  
If the local Baptist Church won't perform a Black Mass so I can gay-marry a dolphin, I'm calling the TSA!!
 
2013-06-27 11:56:47 AM  
"In this opinion, is the absolutely inevitable seed of essentially nationalizing gay marriage in the way Roe nationalized and abolished all the abortion laws."

So not at all?
 
2013-06-27 11:57:34 AM  

DarnoKonrad: utah dude: what about polygamy ?

as long as it's primarily practiced by men who want a harem, you can make a pretty rational argument against it being bad for society.


But then how am I going to get my harem?
 
2013-06-27 11:57:42 AM  

DarnoKonrad: max_pooper: When did the Catholic church lose its tax exempt status for refusing to marry divorced people?

Oh, they haven't? You mean the mouth breathers arguments against marriage equality are all bullshait? I am shocked.

To be fair, Krauthammer  breaths through a tube, not his mouth.


Did ya ever wonder where the other end of that tube went?
 
2013-06-27 11:58:14 AM  
Yesterday was my second anniversary, but because of this decision, our traditional marriage was destroyed. We were forcibly auto-divorced and now I'm living in sin with a donkey. Thanks a lot SCOTUS.
 
2013-06-27 11:58:38 AM  
Sure, this sets in motion the gears to a federal opinion that same-sex couples can get married. But nobody has ever been forced to marry someone. Hell, just last year, there was a church in Mississippi that refused to marry a black man and a black woman! And about the same time, a Kentucky church banned marrying interracial couples! Uncle Sam will not stop you from being a hateful bigot in your church if that's what you want to be.
 
2013-06-27 11:59:20 AM  

James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.


I disagree. No group should be tax exempt. period.
 
2013-06-27 11:59:38 AM  

CPennypacker: Yesterday was my second anniversary, but because of this decision, our traditional marriage was destroyed. We were forcibly auto-divorced and now I'm living in sin with a donkey. Thanks a lot SCOTUS.


I can't decide who has it worse, you or the donkey?
 
2013-06-27 11:59:57 AM  

CPennypacker: Yesterday was my second anniversary, but because of this decision, our traditional marriage was destroyed. We were forcibly auto-divorced and now I'm living in sin with a donkey. Thanks a lot SCOTUS.


Same thing happened to me but our 17th anniversary was coming up.  Well the same except the donkey was taken and now I am alone, thanks CPennypacker.
 
2013-06-27 12:00:12 PM  

Pincy: CPennypacker: Yesterday was my second anniversary, but because of this decision, our traditional marriage was destroyed. We were forcibly auto-divorced and now I'm living in sin with a donkey. Thanks a lot SCOTUS.

I can't decide who has it worse, you or the donkey?


Definitely the donkey
 
2013-06-27 12:00:31 PM  

coeyagi: BunkoSquad: This thread should be conducted in caveman-speak

COK RAW SPUNK POOT ALL NITE, NEED MARRIAGE. JIZZ WINDOW GROK AFTER NUPTIAL, LIMO NEED SQUEEGIE, RIBBONS OF SHAME.  AND SPOOGE.


Go on......
 
2013-06-27 12:00:56 PM  
Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can. We have special powers of persuasion.
We just haven't used them until now because we like getting strung up, dragged behind cars, and kicked in the teeth.

But a decade or so ago, Satan called up the leaders of the Gay Agenda and told us we had to start using our mind-control powers for things other than seducing the occasional drunk fratboy.
So now we're dead set on forcing everyone to engage in our weddings, where the food and music will actually be good. Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.
 
2013-06-27 12:01:09 PM  
Then, the next step will be churches have to perform homosexual marriage or they will lose their tax-exempt status

I honestly wish this would happen, just to see the look on people's faces.
 
2013-06-27 12:01:33 PM  

abb3w: In exactly the same manner that churches have been able to lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform mixed-race marriages, ever since Virginia v Loving was handed down.


Came to point this out. Churches have never been required to wed people they don't support the marriage of... however county clerks are. Those poor brave souls who want to be able to abuse their sliver of power to discriminate against couples they don't support will be stripped of that power: why isn't anyone thinking of them in all this?
 
2013-06-27 12:01:44 PM  
I am happy.

Brilliant headline submitter.... I will have to climb a mountain in the Himalayas to study troll-fu at your feet.

I am also happy that TV Vinnie's attempts to resurrect that insufferable caveman protomeme seem to be failing.
 
2013-06-27 12:02:09 PM  

lockers: James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.

I disagree. No group should be tax exempt. period.


You don't think a legitimate, non-profit charity should be tax exempt? Like say a secular foundation for AIDS research?
 
2013-06-27 12:02:23 PM  

James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.


Are churches--as opposed to church-owned businesses--exempt from all anti-discrimination laws?  I know some churches won't do interracial weddings (they were in the news last year); are they at any risk of losing their tax-exempt status because of it?

But yeah, since churches are currently allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion (duh), gender (women can't be Catholic priests), ethnicity (you can't become a one of the kohanim, you have to be descended from them), and marital status, I can't see them being held accountable for other types of discrimination.
 
2013-06-27 12:02:45 PM  
suck it homophobes. I hope one day the govt forces you to share your home with a gay couple.
 
2013-06-27 12:03:13 PM  

lemurs: The point of a separate of Church and State is that it works both ways, which is something fundies on the Church side should keep in mind every time they think there shouldn't be one.


You expect them to think that far ahead? Doesn't happen. It's a consistent practice-they think  all about how  those laws are curtailing  their Juh-Hee-Suh-Hus-given  Freedom!™s, without for a femtosecond thinking about how those laws also protect them from those  other peoples' freedoms. And they never do until they get those laws abolished and it's rubbed in their faces.

When that finally does happen, they claim that they need some sort of  law in place to protect them. And preferably  just them.
 
2013-06-27 12:03:59 PM  
While the article about how the middle ages catholic church blessed and celebrated same-sex unions wasn't easy to find again, here's a substitute
 
2013-06-27 12:04:14 PM  

GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.


You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.
 
2013-06-27 12:04:18 PM  

GhostFish: Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.


What happens when everything becomes so diffuse that bisexuality becomes the norm and strict "homo/hetero" categories are seen as obsolete?
 
2013-06-27 12:04:32 PM  

mgshamster: Jackson Herring: God Is My Co-Pirate: There was a great story a while back about a couple who got married overseas in...Mauritius? Madagascar?  And the local minister hated tourist weddings, and just smiled while swearing at them the whole time in his native tongue, calling the bride a whore, etc.

haha that's got to be one of the most shiat that didn't happen things i've ever heard

Well, there is this: http://storyful.com/stories/605


a story that is literally 100% perfect for the daily mail, entirely predicated on someone's translation of a youtube video in a local dialect that I have sure as fark never heard of

I mean sometimes shiat that did not happen actually did happen, but I'm pretty skeptical of this one
 
2013-06-27 12:04:54 PM  
There is a unique case in New Jersey where a church received a tax break under New Jersey's "Green Acres" program. A lesbian couple wanted to host a commitment ceremony there and the church said no. The church was sued for violation of New Jersey's non-discrimination in places of public accommodations law and also lost the tax exemption on the pavilion.
 
2013-06-27 12:05:31 PM  

youncasqua: lockers: James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.

I disagree. No group should be tax exempt. period.

You don't think a legitimate, non-profit charity should be tax exempt? Like say a secular foundation for AIDS research?


Nope, It is way to easy to abuse that status. Instead of the costly policing, we are better served in getting rid of the privilege.
 
2013-06-27 12:05:40 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: GhostFish: Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.

What happens when everything becomes so diffuse that bisexuality becomes the norm and strict "homo/hetero" categories are seen as obsolete?


Then human happiness will be freed from one arbitrary restriction.
 
2013-06-27 12:06:21 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: Sgt Otter: "So where do you want to have our wedding, honey?"
"Well, we could do it at the church that we actually attend, with our minister whom we've known for years..."
"Or?"
"Let's do it at a place we've never been to, that openly despises us, conducted by a guy who is going to be scowling and pissed off during the entire ceremony!"
"It will be such a magical day!"

There was a great story a while back about a couple who got married overseas in...Mauritius? Madagascar?  And the local minister hated tourist weddings, and just smiled while swearing at them the whole time in his native tongue, calling the bride a whore, etc.


Oooo, so close.  The Maldives.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/paradise-wedding-that-w as -lost-in-translation-2119536.html

hillbillypharmacist: WI241TH: Basically? They organized an entire event last year recording church leaders advocating for candidates and mailed them to the IRS, daring them to revoke tax-exempt status, and nothing happened.

Didn't hear about that, but I don't doubt it.  You have a link?


It was called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday".  Looks like it's an annual event.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/08/us-usa-tax-pulpit-idUSBRE8 97 00E20121008

The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the IRS over its inaction.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/freedom-from-religion-found at ion-lawsuit_n_2138457.html
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-27 12:06:49 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: GhostFish: Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.

What happens when everything becomes so diffuse that bisexuality becomes the norm and strict "homo/hetero" categories are seen as obsolete?


some us ugly guys actually get to have some fun??

//I don't understand the question, but it sounds good to me?
 
2013-06-27 12:07:35 PM  
Look, nobody's going to take away churches' tax-exempt status.  I honestly wish they would, it makes no sense, but with the kind of politicking that goes on every day from the pulpit, if churches aren't losing their tax-exempt status en masse now, it ain't going to happen.
 
2013-06-27 12:07:48 PM  

abb3w: In exactly the same manner that churches have been able to lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform mixed-race marriages, ever since Virginia v Loving was handed down.


NAILED IT!

This argument is so full of holes that I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 70 would even advance it. The Loving v Virginia case is a great analog that clearly establishes that Churches, Synagogues, Temples, etc. have NEVER been forced by the government, or punished in any manner, to marry anyone outside those they choose.  The government's granting a license and legally recognizing a gay couple as being "married" imposes NO DUTY upon any religious or private social organization to recognize them as being married.
 
2013-06-27 12:08:04 PM  

Diogenes: monoski: James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.

You cannot even be a non-greek guest if it is a orthodox greek wedding

Hey now!  I went to one.

Though it makes me wonder if Uncle Joey had to convert.  It was a long time ago.

I like how everything in the ceremony was in threes, and liked the symbolism of the head ring thingies tied together.


As with most church related items there are exceptions but under true orthodox practices, non non-greek guests permitted.
 
2013-06-27 12:09:34 PM  

lawboy87: This argument is so full of holes that I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 70 would even advance it.


I THINK I SEE THE PROBLEM HERE SIR.
 
2013-06-27 12:09:45 PM  

James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.



i'm gonna Jewjack your church and sneak in and get gay Jew-married just because I DON'T WANNA SHUT MY farkING FACE.

and make no mistake, we will sing Hava Negilah with gusto, bucko.
 
2013-06-27 12:09:51 PM  

Misch: There is a unique case in New Jersey where a church received a tax break under New Jersey's "Green Acres" program. A lesbian couple wanted to host a commitment ceremony there and the church said no. The church was sued for violation of New Jersey's non-discrimination in places of public accommodations law and also lost the tax exemption on the pavilion.


The purpose of the Green Acres Program:  To achieve, in partnership with others, a system of interconnected open spaces, whose protection will preserve and enhance New Jersey's natural environment and its historic, scenic, and recreational resources for public use and enjoyment.

They didn't ask for the church to perform the service, they just wanted to use the pavilion, which is supposed to be available as a public space as part of the Green Acres program.
 
2013-06-27 12:10:19 PM  

d23: The_Gallant_Gallstone: GhostFish: Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.

What happens when everything becomes so diffuse that bisexuality becomes the norm and strict "homo/hetero" categories are seen as obsolete?

some us ugly guys actually get to have some fun??

//I don't understand the question, but it sounds good to me?


Nope, it will just breed a new race of bisexual super men who can perform all sexual acts at once and will render us normal folk obsolete.
 
2013-06-27 12:10:32 PM  

rickythepenguin: James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.


i'm gonna Jewjack your church and sneak in and get gay Jew-married just because I DON'T WANNA SHUT MY farkING FACE.

and make no mistake, we will sing Hava Negilah with gusto, bucko.


Can I stomp on the glass?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-27 12:10:34 PM  

DarnoKonrad: utah dude: what about polygamy ?

as long as it's primarily practiced by men who want a harem, you can make a pretty rational argument against it being bad for society.


There is no illegality in living together as a harem.  The problem comes in if it's a legal arrangement.  That is definitely unfair.  However, the real argument and problem here is when a TWO people want to legally have all the advantages of a marriage.  When you call it different things then all of a sudden you have the two categories being treated differently.

Actually with as lax as the corporate laws are if you could figure out a way file a corporate charter for your harem then you probably have more advantages than with marriage anyway!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-27 12:11:10 PM  

PonceAlyosha: d23: The_Gallant_Gallstone: GhostFish: Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.

What happens when everything becomes so diffuse that bisexuality becomes the norm and strict "homo/hetero" categories are seen as obsolete?

some us ugly guys actually get to have some fun??

//I don't understand the question, but it sounds good to me?

Nope, it will just breed a new race of bisexual super men who can perform all sexual acts at once and will render us normal folk obsolete.


darn
 
2013-06-27 12:11:39 PM  

lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-27 12:11:40 PM  
Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.
 
2013-06-27 12:11:43 PM  

Tomahawk513: Can I stomp on the glass?


sure!  L'chaim!  Mazeltov!
 
2013-06-27 12:11:53 PM  
The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-27 12:14:24 PM  

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.


When you invoke "God's law" your case for constitutionality should END THERE.  You lose automatically.

It's not the government's job to enforce God's law.  I know some idiots out there think it is, but if you go back and read the Federalist Papers, treaties, and what have you it's plainly not what was intended.
 
2013-06-27 12:14:45 PM  

2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.


We already have this.  All marriages in the US are basically "civil unions" because they are civil contracts under the law.
 
2013-06-27 12:15:03 PM  

2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate


So... A marriage license under a different name. Why? Bigoted shiats already demonstrated that whining about the word "marriage" is a complete red herring, given that they oppose civil unions, too, they're just against equal rights.
 
2013-06-27 12:15:08 PM  

2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.


So you want a name change? Whats the point? No current church invented the word "marriage" so why do they get exclusive use of it?
 
2013-06-27 12:15:09 PM  
memedepot.com

THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY
 
2013-06-27 12:15:28 PM  

2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.


What a nice, paper-thin, vapid way of fixing this "problem." Play with names until people are mindlessly placated. Guess what? That solution changes absofarkinglutely nothing. More importantly, with laws being as they are now, they create the sexual version of "separate but equal," where "civil unions" sound great but the aspect of marriage being a fundamental aspect of family law. People are offended over society changing, so to answer it you want to play with names to make those people who are offended happy. In doing so, you would produce just another Plessy vs. Ferguson debacle that has the added benefit of farking up hundreds of years of family law instead of JUST LETTING GAYS MARRY.
 
2013-06-27 12:16:27 PM  
Tax-exempt churches, tax-exempt political groups and rich people like Mitt Romney going through alternate sources to avoid taxes... and you wonder why this country is in so much debt when taxes are a big revenue generator...
 
2013-06-27 12:16:52 PM  
Honey, the Supreme Court is at the door with a man named Albert.  They say our marriage is invalid and I'm married to Albert now.
 
2013-06-27 12:17:16 PM  

2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.


Nah, we're not gonna do that. Never, ever going to happen. Nope.
But you can keep clamoring for it and saying it's the best option if that makes you happy.
 
2013-06-27 12:17:42 PM  
I truly cannot understand this argument. Why the fark would a gay couple even WANT to get married in a community that despises them by forcing them to?

This makes about as much sense as gay marriage leads to animal marriage.

Farking Neanderthals.
 
2013-06-27 12:18:02 PM  

lawboy87: abb3w: In exactly the same manner that churches have been able to lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform mixed-race marriages, ever since Virginia v Loving was handed down.

NAILED IT!

This argument is so full of holes that I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 70 would even advance it. The Loving v Virginia case is a great analog that clearly establishes that Churches, Synagogues, Temples, etc. have NEVER been forced by the government, or punished in any manner, to marry anyone outside those they choose.  The government's granting a license and legally recognizing a gay couple as being "married" imposes NO DUTY upon any religious or private social organization to recognize them as being married.


Republicans know that. It's like medical insurance, money, property, voting rights, etc... They only want these things for themselves. It's every Republican's dream to have a magnificent castle on a mountaintop with the entire world suffering below for their viewing pleasure.
 
2013-06-27 12:18:04 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]


So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.
 
2013-06-27 12:18:39 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: WI241TH: Basically? They organized an entire event last year recording church leaders advocating for candidates and mailed them to the IRS, daring them to revoke tax-exempt status, and nothing happened.

Didn't hear about that, but I don't doubt it.  You have a link?


Just google "pulpit freedom Sunday" there are tons of stories, apparently there was another one 3 weeks ago:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/09/today-is-pulp i t-freedom-sunday-when-christian-pastors-dare-the-irs-to-revoke-their-t ax-exemption/
 
2013-06-27 12:18:54 PM  
The sooner they give up their tax-exempt status the better. Churches should be calling out Obama and the other neoliberal fascists every Sunday.
 
2013-06-27 12:20:27 PM  

d23: DarnoKonrad: utah dude: what about polygamy ?

as long as it's primarily practiced by men who want a harem, you can make a pretty rational argument against it being bad for society.

There is no illegality in living together as a harem.  The problem comes in if it's a legal arrangement.  That is definitely unfair.  However, the real argument and problem here is when a TWO people want to legally have all the advantages of a marriage.  When you call it different things then all of a sudden you have the two categories being treated differently.

Actually with as lax as the corporate laws are if you could figure out a way file a corporate charter for your harem then you probably have more advantages than with marriage anyway!



Yea, there's nothing illegal about informally sleeping/living with multiple people.  The problem is that when it's formalized, it's often just a tool to oppress women and children -- at least this is what the expert witnesses to Canada's trial on the subject testified.  As long as that's true, there's a good reason to keep it illegal -- at least under a common law system like our own and Canada's where you can argue such points.
 
2013-06-27 12:20:56 PM  

James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.


There also haven't been forced to allow women priests/ministers. The Idiot Brigade seems to forget this.
 
2013-06-27 12:21:07 PM  

James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.


I think it's a terrible idea. The only thing stopping megachurches and evangelists from openly running political parties is their greed for their tax-exempt status.

As much as I'd love to tax churches into oblivion, take that away and you open the flood gates to Theocracy.
 
2013-06-27 12:21:12 PM  

GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can. We have special powers of persuasion.
We just haven't used them until now because we like getting strung up, dragged behind cars, and kicked in the teeth.

But a decade or so ago, Satan called up the leaders of the Gay Agenda and told us we had to start using our mind-control powers for things other than seducing the occasional drunk fratboy.
So now we're dead set on forcing everyone to engage in our weddings, where the food and music will actually be good. Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.


Sigh...I wish I were gay.
 
2013-06-27 12:21:44 PM  

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.


I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"
 
2013-06-27 12:23:00 PM  

James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.


Well, considering that no actual churches were part of any IRS targeting campaign, they'd be giving it up for nothing. Which I fully endorse.
 
2013-06-27 12:23:02 PM  

youncasqua: lockers: James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.

I disagree. No group should be tax exempt. period.

You don't think a legitimate, non-profit charity should be tax exempt? Like say a secular foundation for AIDS research?


Except for churches, aren't such entities subject to general taxes such as those on property in most jurisdictions? I know that the youth shelter I used to work with was obligated to pay unemployment and workers' comp taxes for our employees (we paid no property taxes because our operations were housed by a consortium of churches). Of course, non-profits will always be exempt from income taxes because income taxes are levied on profits.
 
2013-06-27 12:25:09 PM  

Sgt Otter: "So where do you want to have our wedding, honey?"
"Well, we could do it at the church that we actually attend, with our minister whom we've known for years..."
"Or?"
"Let's do it at a place we've never been to, that openly despises us, conducted by a guy who is going to be scowling and pissed off during the entire ceremony!"
"It will be such a magical day!"


...in reality, it'll be the other way around.

"So, let's get married!"
"Sure.  But we can't do it at your church, 'cuz your pastor doesn't perform gay weddings. And I'm an atheist. So I guess we're stuck with just renting a fabulous dance hall and having the justice of the peace do it."
"It will be such a magical day!"
 
2013-06-27 12:25:13 PM  
There are assholes everywhere....including gay assholes (*ahem*). Surely there would be (and are) a few who would try to spite churches if they could. But definitely a small minority.

I think these Christian assholes think gays would do this because they would do something similar were the roles reversed......and so they assume everyone else is as much of an asshole as they.
 
2013-06-27 12:25:28 PM  
Since you don't need to be married in a church to be married in the eyes of the local, state and federal government then I can't see how or why they would try to force such a thing.
 
2013-06-27 12:26:08 PM  

Tamater: I truly cannot understand this argument. Why the fark would a gay couple even WANT to get married in a community that despises them by forcing them to?

This makes about as much sense as gay marriage leads to animal marriage.

Farking Neanderthals.


See you are already thinking about FArking Neanderthals, going outside the species is animal sex and that could lead to animal marriage.  your statement proves the counter.
 
2013-06-27 12:27:43 PM  

Tamater: There are assholes everywhere....including gay assholes (*ahem*). Surely there would be (and are) a few who would try to spite churches if they could. But definitely a small minority.

I think these Christian assholes think gays would do this because they would do something similar were the roles reversed......and so they assume everyone else is as much of an asshole as they.


Look, when you're talking about someone using their wedding as a weapon of spite against an organization or culture then that's a bit beyond "asshole".

That's "cartoon villain" levels of sociopathy.
 
2013-06-27 12:27:45 PM  
Parthenogenetic

Thank you!
 
2013-06-27 12:27:52 PM  
Stopped reading at 'Krauthammer'. Nothing worth listening to here. Move along.
 
2013-06-27 12:27:55 PM  

bmongar: Tamater: I truly cannot understand this argument. Why the fark would a gay couple even WANT to get married in a community that despises them by forcing them to?

This makes about as much sense as gay marriage leads to animal marriage.

Farking Neanderthals.

See you are already thinking about FArking Neanderthals, going outside the species is animal sex and that could lead to animal marriage.  your statement proves the counter.


I never thought of it that way...

*POOF......Tamater vanishes in a puff of logic.
 
2013-06-27 12:28:58 PM  
All inclusive mega churches are all hemorrhaging money and will soon cease to exist.
 
2013-06-27 12:29:03 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.

I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"


Put down the vodka, buddy. I never said that people ARE justified, I said they feel justified. It is exactly the divisive language that GhostFish used that muddies this debate. It is clear cut that sexual orientation is not something we should discriminate against, and you condone him using a pejorative against sexual orientation. It is comic in it's stupidity.
 
2013-06-27 12:29:33 PM  
Churches won't be required to perform gay marriages because they have constitutional rights too.

Churches shouldn't have tax exempt status in the first place.
 
2013-06-27 12:30:16 PM  

bmongar: CPennypacker: Yesterday was my second anniversary, but because of this decision, our traditional marriage was destroyed. We were forcibly auto-divorced and now I'm living in sin with a donkey. Thanks a lot SCOTUS.

Same thing happened to me but our 17th anniversary was coming up.  Well the same except the donkey was taken and now I am alone, thanks CPennypacker.


You guys have it easy!

Not only was my marriage torn assunder, but then I was forced to gay marry into a donkey's turtle harem. Tonight is my night
 
2013-06-27 12:30:16 PM  

Tomahawk513: Can I stomp on the glass?


Always gotta be one buzzkill at every party...

// look up that tradition
// it's not a happy thing, despite what pop culture has made it out to be
 
2013-06-27 12:30:36 PM  

dennysgod: Since you don't need to be married in a church to be married in the eyes of the local, state and federal government then I can't see how or why they would try to force such a thing.


Because they honestly think religion owns marriage....it's a sacrament, it's magical, it's spiritual, it's traditional.

They completely reject the notion that it is a civil matter.

Why? Because they're retarded, that's why.
 
2013-06-27 12:31:38 PM  

GhostFish: Tamater: There are assholes everywhere....including gay assholes (*ahem*). Surely there would be (and are) a few who would try to spite churches if they could. But definitely a small minority.

I think these Christian assholes think gays would do this because they would do something similar were the roles reversed......and so they assume everyone else is as much of an asshole as they.

Look, when you're talking about someone using their wedding as a weapon of spite against an organization or culture then that's a bit beyond "asshole".

That's "cartoon villain" levels of sociopathy.


Agreed. I remember seeing an article about it happening somewhere though. Still, it's rare that someone rises to that level of spite.
 
2013-06-27 12:32:15 PM  

lockers: divisive language that GhostFish used


Filthy masticator, I bet you defecate like some kind of animal. Dis-gusting.
 
2013-06-27 12:32:26 PM  

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.

I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"

Put down the vodka, buddy. I never said that people ARE justified, I said they feel justified. It is exactly the divisive language that GhostFish used that muddies this debate. It is clear cut that sexual orientation is not something we should discriminate against, and you condone him using a pejorative against sexual orientation. It is comic in it's stupidity.



Err...breeder doesn't belong just to the gays. I know quite a few heterosexuals that don't want kids who've used that term to describe people with kids for yeaaaaars.
 
2013-06-27 12:32:59 PM  
kvetchmom.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-27 12:36:24 PM  

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.

I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"

Put down the vodka, buddy. I never said that people ARE justified, I said they feel justified. It is exactly the divisive language that GhostFish used that muddies this debate. It is clear cut that sexual orientation is not something we should discriminate against, and you condone him using a pejorative against sexual orientation. It is comic in it's stupidity.


Yeah, I know, "breeders" hurts, it takes me back to centuries of being given preferential societal status and how even today my relationship is seen as morally and legally superior to other peoples' in huge parts of the world because of the parts my wife happens to have. When will the not-oppression end?
 
2013-06-27 12:36:40 PM  

Tamater: Why the fark would a gay couple even WANT to get married in a community that despises them by forcing them to?


what does this sentence mean? what the fark do you think is happening?
 
2013-06-27 12:37:17 PM  

Jackson Herring: Tamater: Why the fark would a gay couple even WANT to get married in a community that despises them by forcing them to?

what does this sentence mean? what the fark do you think is happening?


oh sorry I see what you are saying, never mind!
 
2013-06-27 12:37:34 PM  

Bloody William: 2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.

What a nice, paper-thin, vapid way of fixing this "problem." Play with names until people are mindlessly placated. Guess what? That solution changes absofarkinglutely nothing. More importantly, with laws being as they are now, they create the sexual version of "separate but equal," where "civil unions" sound great but the aspect of marriage being a fundamental aspect of family law. People are offended over society changing, so to answer it you want to play with names to make those people who are offended happy. In doing so, you would produce just another Plessy vs. Ferguson debacle that has the added benefit of farking up hundreds of years of family law instead of JUST LETTING GAYS MARRY.



It shuts up the people who say it devalues the word, and or meaning of  "Marriage".  It shuts up the idoits who say "what's next a man and his dog" No Idoit, just as the goverment woul not recognize a business transaction between a dog and a man, it wont' recognize a civil uniion.

No, it's not "Seperate" but Equal.  EVERYONE gets a Civil Union: traditional couples, and same sex. Everyone.  Familly Law would need to change to only recognize Civil unions. (would have to grandfather in Marrige licesese).

You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.  Goverments don't get involved. A Gay couple can got get married in any church that will marry them. They need a cival union if they want the legal system to acknowledge them. A  same sex couple can get married in any church that will marry them. IF they want legal recognition, they need a cival union.

Yea, people are getting hung up the word "Marry".  Including you.
 
2013-06-27 12:38:13 PM  

2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.


The current system:
You go down to the courthouse and get a 'marriage' license from the clerk.  You then go get married by whichever minister, rabbi, priest, ship captain, or judge you desire.  No matter where you get married you get the same federal benefits.  But whatever route you choose, the government is involved because you can't get it done without talking to the clerk.

Your system:
You go down to the courthouse and get a 'civil union' license from the clerk.  You then go get married by whichever minister, rabbi, priest, ship captain, or judge you desire.  No matter where you get married you get the same federal benefits.  But whatever route you choose, the government is involved because you can't get it done without talking to the clerk.

Your plan is neither internally consistent (you want to remove government from the marriage business by replacing it with ... the government) and painfully stupid - since all you want to do is change the heading at the top of the license.

Seems like a lot of trouble to go through when you could stop preventing gays from exercising the same rights as straight.  And doing that isn't even doing something - it's simply not going out of your way to be a dick to someone just because they don't think love is a sin.  My plan is simpler because all it involves is not actively being an asshole.
 
2013-06-27 12:38:42 PM  

2 grams: It shuts up the people who say it devalues the word, and or meaning of  "Marriage".  It shuts up the idoits who say "what's next a man and his dog" No Idoit, just as the goverment woul not recognize a business transaction between a dog and a man, it wont' recognize a civil uniion.


That has never been true. Shut the fark up with this disingenuous nonsense.
 
2013-06-27 12:39:00 PM  

Tamater: James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.

I think it's a terrible idea. The only thing stopping megachurches and evangelists from openly running political parties is their greed for their tax-exempt status.

As much as I'd love to tax churches into oblivion, take that away and you open the flood gates to Theocracy.


I doubt it; at the very least, separation of church and state would still be floating around. I also doubt that losing their tax-exempt status would significantly alter the political tactics of megachurches and evangelists.
 
2013-06-27 12:39:09 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.

I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"

Put down the vodka, buddy. I never said that people ARE justified, I said they feel justified. It is exactly the divisive language that GhostFish used that muddies this debate. It is clear cut that sexual orientation is not something we should discriminate against, and you condone him using a pejorative against sexual orientation. It is comic in it's stupidity.

Yeah, I know, "breeders" hurts, it takes me back to centuries of being given preferential societal status and how even today my relationship is seen as morally and legally superior to other peoples' in huge parts of the world because of the parts my wife happens to have. When will the not-oppression end?


Well, I can put you in touch with a few dominatrix's who will handle that for you if you'd like
 
2013-06-27 12:39:28 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.

I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"

Put down the vodka, buddy. I never said that people ARE justified, I said they feel justified. It is exactly the divisive language that GhostFish used that muddies this debate. It is clear cut that sexual orientation is not something we should discriminate against, and you condone him using a pejorative against sexual orientation. It is comic in it's stupidity.

Yeah, I know, "breeders" hurts, it takes me back to centuries of being given preferential societal status and how even today my relationship is seen as morally and legally superior to other peoples' in huge parts of the world because of the parts my wife happens to have. When will the not-oppression end?


I'm pretty sure gay people can be breeders as well.  Lesbians can do artificial insemination.  And I know a woman who is currently pregnant as a surrogate for two gay guys and the sperm that fertilized the donor egg inside of her came from one of the guys.
 
2013-06-27 12:39:49 PM  

monoski: James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.

You cannot even be a non-greek guest if it is a orthodox greek wedding


Some years ago I was best man at a Catholic wedding. We were running through the rehearsal and the priest said "And at this point the best man and the maid of honor kneel." I said "Excuse me father but I'm Jewish. I will be happy to lower my head to show respect but I can't kneel in a Catholic church." He said "Either you kneel or the wedding's off. Find another best man if you want but I won't perform the service if you don't kneel." When we got to that part of the service I hovered with my knees above the stairs, gritting my teeth and seething with anger. After the ceremony I went off to find the priest and punch him in the nose, but he had collected his check and left.
 
2013-06-27 12:41:24 PM  

Pincy: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.

I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"

Put down the vodka, buddy. I never said that people ARE justified, I said they feel justified. It is exactly the divisive language that GhostFish used that muddies this debate. It is clear cut that sexual orientation is not something we should discriminate against, and you condone him using a pejorative against sexual orientation. It is comic in it's stupidity.

Yeah, I know, "breeders" hurts, it takes me back to centuries of being given preferential societal status and how even today my relationship is seen as morally and legally superior to other peoples' in huge parts of the world because of the parts my wife happens to have. When will the not-oppression end?

I'm pretty sure gay people can be breeders as well.  Lesbians can do artificial insemination.  And I know a woman who is currently pregnant as a surrogate for two gay guys and the sperm that fertilized the donor egg inside of her came from one of the guys.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_(slang)

Old slang is old.

/and used by far more than just gay people
 
2013-06-27 12:41:24 PM  

DarnoKonrad: d23: DarnoKonrad: utah dude: what about polygamy ?

as long as it's primarily practiced by men who want a harem, you can make a pretty rational argument against it being bad for society.

There is no illegality in living together as a harem.  The problem comes in if it's a legal arrangement.  That is definitely unfair.  However, the real argument and problem here is when a TWO people want to legally have all the advantages of a marriage.  When you call it different things then all of a sudden you have the two categories being treated differently.

Actually with as lax as the corporate laws are if you could figure out a way file a corporate charter for your harem then you probably have more advantages than with marriage anyway!


Yea, there's nothing illegal about informally sleeping/living with multiple people.  The problem is that when it's formalized, it's often just a tool to oppress women and children -- at least this is what the expert witnesses to Canada's trial on the subject testified.  As long as that's true, there's a good reason to keep it illegal -- at least under a common law system like our own and Canada's where you can argue such points.


Except in many states fornication is illegal.  Sometimes it even gets prosecuted.
 
2013-06-27 12:41:50 PM  

Pincy: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.

I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"

Put down the vodka, buddy. I never said that people ARE justified, I said they feel justified. It is exactly the divisive language that GhostFish used that muddies this debate. It is clear cut that sexual orientation is not something we should discriminate against, and you condone him using a pejorative against sexual orientation. It is comic in it's stupidity.

Yeah, I know, "breeders" hurts, it takes me back to centuries of being given preferential societal status and how even today my relationship is seen as morally and legally superior to other peoples' in huge parts of the world because of the parts my wife happens to have. When will the not-oppression end?

I'm pretty sure gay people can be breeders as well.  Lesbians can do artificial insemination.  And I know a woman who is currently pregnant as a surrogate for two gay guys and the sperm that fertilized the donor egg inside of her came from one of the guys.


Sure. There's tons of ridiculousness with this pearl-clutching. And I get that at the core of lockers's whining, there is a kernel of validity to not using discriminatory language like that; I certainly wouldn't. I just feel the need to needle a straight guy acting so injured by the term "breeders" in a thread about how there's still a massive political machine against equal rights.
 
2013-06-27 12:41:58 PM  

2 grams: No, it's not "Seperate" but Equal. EVERYONE gets a Civil Union: traditional couples, and same sex. Everyone.


Again, that's the way it already works in the US because every legal marriage is a civil contract.  Changing the legally recognized name for this contract from "marriage" to "civil union" will do nothing because people who are against gay marriage aren't really against it because they are trying to protect the name "marriage" but because they don't like gay people and don't want them to have the same rights.
 
2013-06-27 12:42:55 PM  
Although I completely agree that they shouldn't have to, I'm happy to see them get riled up over this imaginary boogeyman.
 
2013-06-27 12:42:56 PM  

grumpfuff: Pincy: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.

I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"

Put down the vodka, buddy. I never said that people ARE justified, I said they feel justified. It is exactly the divisive language that GhostFish used that muddies this debate. It is clear cut that sexual orientation is not something we should discriminate against, and you condone him using a pejorative against sexual orientation. It is comic in it's stupidity.

Yeah, I know, "breeders" hurts, it takes me back to centuries of being given preferential societal status and how even today my relationship is seen as morally and legally superior to other peoples' in huge parts of the world because of the parts my wife happens to have. When will the not-oppression end?

I'm pretty sure gay people can be breeders as well.  Lesbians can do artificial insemination.  And I know a woman who is currently pregnant as a surrogate for two gay guys and the sperm that fertilized the donor egg inside of her came from one of the guys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_(slang)

Old slang is old.

/and used by far more than just gay people


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_(slang)


FTFM
 
2013-06-27 12:42:57 PM  
Part of me wants to hope that the Right will see the writing on the wall, and the Left will be willing to let go of total victory in favor of a compromise where government becomes less involved in ALL marriages.  The other part of me doesn't live in magic fairyland.
 
2013-06-27 12:44:49 PM  

Jackson Herring: mgshamster: Jackson Herring: God Is My Co-Pirate: There was a great story a while back about a couple who got married overseas in...Mauritius? Madagascar?  And the local minister hated tourist weddings, and just smiled while swearing at them the whole time in his native tongue, calling the bride a whore, etc.

haha that's got to be one of the most shiat that didn't happen things i've ever heard

Well, there is this: http://storyful.com/stories/605

a story that is literally 100% perfect for the daily mail, entirely predicated on someone's translation of a youtube video in a local dialect that I have sure as fark never heard of

I mean sometimes shiat that did not happen actually did happen, but I'm pretty skeptical of this one


Yeah, after watching the video, I was fairly skeptical as well.
 
2013-06-27 12:45:18 PM  

2 grams: Bloody William: 2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.

What a nice, paper-thin, vapid way of fixing this "problem." Play with names until people are mindlessly placated. Guess what? That solution changes absofarkinglutely nothing. More importantly, with laws being as they are now, they create the sexual version of "separate but equal," where "civil unions" sound great but the aspect of marriage being a fundamental aspect of family law. People are offended over society changing, so to answer it you want to play with names to make those people who are offended happy. In doing so, you would produce just another Plessy vs. Ferguson debacle that has the added benefit of farking up hundreds of years of family law instead of JUST LETTING GAYS MARRY.


It shuts up the people who say it devalues the word, and or meaning of  "Marriage".  It shuts up the idoits who say "what's next a man and his dog" No Idoit, just as the goverment woul not recognize a business transaction between a dog and a man, it wont' recognize a civil uniion.

No, it's not "Seperate" but Equal.  EVERYONE gets a Civil Union: traditional couples, and same sex. Everyone.  Familly Law would need to change to only recognize Civil unions. (would have to grandfather in Marrige licesese).

You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.  Go ...


...do you not see that all you did was change the name of the legal service? That's not "getting out of the marriage business", that's "changing the name of marriage so that people don't get butthurt when we allow gays to do it."  And they'll get butthurt anyway, because they'll still feel that gays are getting "preferential treatment" by being recognized as "equal" to straight couples.

Also, Ohio, which has an anti-gay marriage statute in its constitution, forbids any arrangement that "simulates marriage". Civil Unions "simulate marriage", therefore, by Ohio law, civil unions are illegal. In theory, this would also mean no straight couple could share any sort of benefits if they're not married. In practice, only gays are affected.
 
2013-06-27 12:45:30 PM  
I'm sure there won't be a shortage of Unitarian and other accepting churches who will take up the slack, Churches can already discriminate against gays in terms of employment so why would they have to marry them to keep their status? Heck they can already blatantly break tax law like those 1100 pastors did by endorsing candidates and still remain untouched.
 
2013-06-27 12:45:38 PM  
Lose tax exempt status if they won't comply?
na.leagueoflegends.com
 
2013-06-27 12:45:58 PM  

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.


Someone warn PocketNinja that a new challenger has entered the match.
 
2013-06-27 12:46:17 PM  

Tamater: GhostFish: Tamater: There are assholes everywhere....including gay assholes (*ahem*). Surely there would be (and are) a few who would try to spite churches if they could. But definitely a small minority.

I think these Christian assholes think gays would do this because they would do something similar were the roles reversed......and so they assume everyone else is as much of an asshole as they.

Look, when you're talking about someone using their wedding as a weapon of spite against an organization or culture then that's a bit beyond "asshole".

That's "cartoon villain" levels of sociopathy.

Agreed. I remember seeing an article about it happening somewhere though. Still, it's rare that someone rises to that level of spite.


Sure, but there are other assholes that use that one extreme example and apply it to everybody else of that class.

Osama bin Laden?  That's how all muslims are.

Mark Fuhrman?  That's how all cops are.

Robert Bales?  That's how all US military service members are.

Westboro Baptist Church?  That's how all Christians are.
 
2013-06-27 12:46:32 PM  

Jackson Herring: Jackson Herring: Tamater: Why the fark would a gay couple even WANT to get married in a community that despises them by forcing them to?

what does this sentence mean? what the fark do you think is happening?

oh sorry I see what you are saying, never mind!


Was going to respond with quizzicaldog.jpg, but, nevermind then ;-) s'all good.
 
2013-06-27 12:46:34 PM  

2 grams: It shuts up the people who say it devalues the word, and or meaning of "Marriage". It shuts up the idoits who say "what's next a man and his dog" No Idoit, just as the goverment woul not recognize a business transaction between a dog and a man, it wont' recognize a civil uniion.


Ahh, I see.  Instead of standing up to and pointing out other peoples' idiotic ideas, you wish to submit to them and add your own.  If you think fundamentalists wouldn't have a shiatstorm over the government trying to relabel their marriages as 'civil unions' then you're farking delusion.

Take a look at what you just wrote.  You're agreeing with morons who say that gay 'marriage' will lead to man-turtle marriages; you're treating that idea as something worthy of consideration. You're just adding on the 'solution' that gay civil unions won't lead to man-turtle civil unions.

You don't have to be that dumb, it's not some virus you get just by breathing the same as someone who's already caught it.   You can fight it; you can resist.  You can even try to cure them instead of letting them infect you.
 
2013-06-27 12:46:45 PM  

Karac: 2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.

The current system:
You go down to the courthouse and get a 'marriage' license from the clerk.  You then go get married by whichever minister, rabbi, priest, ship captain, or judge you desire.  No matter where you get married you get the same federal benefits.  But whatever route you choose, the government is involved because you can't get it done without talking to the clerk.

Your system:
You go down to the courthouse and get a 'civil union' license from the clerk.  You then go get married by whichever minister, rabbi, priest, ship captain, or judge you desire.  No matter where you get married you get the same federal benefits.  But whatever route you choose, the government is involved because you can't get it done without talking to the clerk.

Your plan is neither internally consistent (you want to remove government from the marriage business by replacing it with ... the government) and painfully stupid - since all you want to do is change the heading at the top of the license.

Seems like a lot of trouble to go through when you could stop preventing gays from exercising the same rights as straight.  And doing that isn't even doing something - it's simply not going out of your way to be a dick to someone just because they don't think love is a sin.  My plan is simpler because all it involves is not acti ...


I'd suggest there's a reasonable First Amendment challenge to a state offering opposite-sex couples the ability to say they are married but only letting same-sex couples say they have a civil union while providing the exact same benefits as a marriage.
 
2013-06-27 12:47:10 PM  

Dimensio: But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.


That...  That sounds delicious.

Does anyone know a restaurant where I could have this?
 
2013-06-27 12:47:42 PM  
I blame Henry VIII.
 
2013-06-27 12:48:27 PM  
Dimensio had me going until the bit about goats.10/10 sir. Bravo.
 
2013-06-27 12:48:36 PM  

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-27 12:49:32 PM  
Karac:

Your system:
You go down to the courthouse and get a 'civil union' license from the clerk.  You then go get married by whichever minister, rabbi, priest, ship captain, or judge you desire.  No matter where you get married you get the same federal benefits.  But whatever route you choose, the government is involved because you can't get it done without talking to the clerk.

Your plan is neither internally consistent (you want to remove government from the marriage business by replacing it with ... the government) and painfully stupid - since all you want to do is change the heading at the top of the license.

Seems like a lot of trouble to go through when you could stop preventing gays from exercising the same rights as straight.  And doing that isn't even doing something - it's simply not going out of your way to be a dick to someone just because they don't think love is a sin.  My plan is simpler because all it involves is not actively being an asshole.


It is the same system we have today with name changes. . Your'e aboslutley right. It just shuts up the idoits who arguing over the word "Marraige" on both sides of the issue.

But why wouldn't it work?

Me, I personaly don't care. If people want to fight and argue with institution who want to "Preservee the sanctitiy of marriage" go for it. You'll have a long stupid fight over a word.  A word I don't think the Govrement should be basing legal issues on anyhow because it's tangled up with all sorts of spritual, social and emotinaly charges issues.
 
2013-06-27 12:50:37 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Sure. There's tons of ridiculousness with this pearl-clutching. And I get that at the core of lockers's whining, there is a kernel of validity to not using discriminatory language like that; I certainly wouldn't. I just feel the need to needle a straight guy acting so injured by the term "breeders" in a thread about how there's still a massive political machine against equal rights.


I doubt there's been a single straight person who's been offended by the term "breeder."  However, I guarantee you that 90% of the heterosexuals (and a substantial portion of the homosexuals) would consider anyone using the term to be an idiot.

Unless you're talking about:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-27 12:51:49 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Churches finally having to catch up with the 21st Century?

[pjmedia.com image 379x214]


If that's true, they wouldn't be promoting an invisible sky alien.
 
2013-06-27 12:52:16 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Dimensio: But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

That...  That sounds delicious.

Does anyone know a restaurant where I could have this?


I couldn't tell you where, but I'm positive it exists. I've had it, and it probably tastes even better than you imagine. I think it was a Middle Eastern-type place, but fark me if I remember anything more specific.
 
2013-06-27 12:52:22 PM  

2 grams: It is the same system we have today with name changes. . Your'e aboslutley right. It just shuts up the idoits who arguing over the word "Marraige" on both sides of the issue.

But why wouldn't it work?


Because the people who are against gay marriage aren't really concerned about whether you call something a civil union or a marriage, that's just what they tell you so they won't look like bigots.  They really just don't want gays to have the same rights as everyone else and thus will not be happy with any solution that allows gays equal standing under the law.
 
2013-06-27 12:53:07 PM  

grumpfuff: Well, I can put you in touch with a few dominatrix's who will handle that for you if you'd like


Go on...
 
2013-06-27 12:53:09 PM  

clambam: Some years ago I was best man at a Catholic wedding. We were running through the rehearsal and the priest said "And at this point the best man and the maid of honor kneel." I said "Excuse me father but I'm Jewish. I will be happy to lower my head to show respect but I can't kneel in a Catholic church." He said "Either you kneel or the wedding's off. Find another best man if you want but I won't perform the service if you don't kneel." When we got to that part of the service I hovered with my knees above the stairs, gritting my teeth and seething with anger. After the ceremony I went off to find the priest and punch him in the nose, but he had collected his check and left.


"Next up, a bizarre and terrifying story about an angry Jew who assaulted an innocent Catholic priest... at his friend's wedding!  Governor Palin and Senator Santorum will join our panel to discuss modern day blood libel after this commercial break, here on Fox News Sunday.  Be right back."  *winks, uncrosses and recrosses legs, adjusts miniskirt*
 
2013-06-27 12:53:12 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: However, I guarantee you that 90% of the heterosexuals (and a substantial portion of the homosexuals) would consider anyone using the term to be an idiot.


An idiot, or someone who's being derisively flippant. I'm a bit of both.
 
2013-06-27 12:57:03 PM  

TheOtherGuy: James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.

Not only that, but imagine what it's like for the handful of bigoted churches that won't perform mixed-race weddings these days?  Sure, they still exist and the Evil Gub'mint doesn't harass them... but their congregations are all 90+ and their few indoctrinated children, so they're slowly dying anyway.  Give it a few decades and see how many hold out.  Meanwhile, you may not get the one you wanted, but you should be able to find one... if you live in the right state.

My prediction is that the 12 states where it's legal will begin to see a resurgence, a real economic recovery as all the excess talent and experience in the homosexual population slowly relocates to them.


Example: California?
 
2013-06-27 12:58:22 PM  

GhostFish: An idiot, or someone who's being derisively flippant. I'm a bit of both.


Oh, I'm not saying you'd have to be an idiot to say it, I'm just saying most people are going to look at you like you're an idiot.

grumpfuff: I couldn't tell you where, but I'm positive it exists. I've had it, and it probably tastes even better than you imagine. I think it was a Middle Eastern-type place, but fark me if I remember anything more specific.


But was it's just MILK, or the goat's own mother's milk?  Because the latter makes it more awesome.

Have a lot of middle eastern places around here.  Usually just get lamb dishes and/or kibbe.  Going to have to do some research.
 
2013-06-27 12:58:33 PM  
What sucks here is that Krauthammer is almost always wrong.
 
2013-06-27 12:58:35 PM  
How about we stop allowing cheating on social responsibilities due to levels of reverence for a specific mythos?
 
2013-06-27 12:59:06 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: A Dark Evil Omen: Sure. There's tons of ridiculousness with this pearl-clutching. And I get that at the core of lockers's whining, there is a kernel of validity to not using discriminatory language like that; I certainly wouldn't. I just feel the need to needle a straight guy acting so injured by the term "breeders" in a thread about how there's still a massive political machine against equal rights.

I doubt there's been a single straight person who's been offended by the term "breeder."  However, I guarantee you that 90% of the heterosexuals (and a substantial portion of the homosexuals) would consider anyone using the term to be an idiot.

Unless you're talking about:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x220]


There used to be a gay bar here in Seattle called Tug's, which conducted "breeders' night" one night a week. That was where I first heard Soft Cell's version of "Tainted Love."
 
2013-06-27 12:59:35 PM  

Parthenogenetic: Tamater: GhostFish: Tamater: There are assholes everywhere....including gay assholes (*ahem*). Surely there would be (and are) a few who would try to spite churches if they could. But definitely a small minority.

I think these Christian assholes think gays would do this because they would do something similar were the roles reversed......and so they assume everyone else is as much of an asshole as they.

Look, when you're talking about someone using their wedding as a weapon of spite against an organization or culture then that's a bit beyond "asshole".

That's "cartoon villain" levels of sociopathy.

Agreed. I remember seeing an article about it happening somewhere though. Still, it's rare that someone rises to that level of spite.

Sure, but there are other assholes that use that one extreme example and apply it to everybody else of that class.

Osama bin Laden?  That's how all muslims are.

Mark Fuhrman?  That's how all cops are.

Robert Bales?  That's how all US military service members are.

Westboro Baptist Church?  That's how all Christians are.


Yes, I agree. That was my point.
 
2013-06-27 12:59:55 PM  

BMulligan: There used to be a gay bar here in Seattle called Tug's, which conducted "breeders' night" one night a week. That was where I first heard Soft Cell's version of "Tainted Love."


Were you not alive during the 80's or 90's?  :0
 
2013-06-27 01:00:28 PM  

2 grams: Karac:

Your system:
You go down to the courthouse and get a 'civil union' license from the clerk.  You then go get married by whichever minister, rabbi, priest, ship captain, or judge you desire.  No matter where you get married you get the same federal benefits.  But whatever route you choose, the government is involved because you can't get it done without talking to the clerk.

Your plan is neither internally consistent (you want to remove government from the marriage business by replacing it with ... the government) and painfully stupid - since all you want to do is change the heading at the top of the license.

Seems like a lot of trouble to go through when you could stop preventing gays from exercising the same rights as straight.  And doing that isn't even doing something - it's simply not going out of your way to be a dick to someone just because they don't think love is a sin.  My plan is simpler because all it involves is not actively being an asshole.

It is the same system we have today with name changes. . Your'e aboslutley right. It just shuts up the idoits who arguing over the word "Marraige" on both sides of the issue.

But why wouldn't it work?

Me, I personaly don't care. If people want to fight and argue with institution who want to "Preservee the sanctitiy of marriage" go for it. You'll have a long stupid fight over a word.  A word I don't think the Govrement should be basing legal issues on anyhow because it's tangled up with all sorts of spritual, social and emotinaly charges issues.


It wouldn't work because the EXACT SAME FUNDAMENTALISTS who are against gay marriage are the EXACT SAME FUNDAMENTALISTS who are against gay 'civil unions'.  Which is why you see states edit their constitutions to outlaw gay marriages or anything that 'simulates marriage'.  Go look back 10, 15 years ago - when gays WERE willing to settle for the label of 'civil unions' - they were rejected.

Why do you think bigots who ten years ago wouldn't allow gays to get civil unioned would be accept it today?

The fight isn't over the words 'marriage' and 'civil union'.  It's over lettings gays have legal recognition of their relationship AT ALL.
 
2013-06-27 01:01:23 PM  

Pincy: CPennypacker: Yesterday was my second anniversary, but because of this decision, our traditional marriage was destroyed. We were forcibly auto-divorced and now I'm living in sin with a donkey. Thanks a lot SCOTUS.

I can't decide who has it worse, you or the donkey?


That's an easy one - the donkey is right pissed.  He was enjoying kicking out mules with that mare.
 
2013-06-27 01:02:32 PM  
No one will force churches to perform same sex weddings--though, oddly enough, there may be loss of parishioners when they realize that your ministry won't support them. Which is perhaps why Unitarians are growing faster than many other ministries in the US. You want to keep on with the support of an aging population, and lose young folks, keep it up. That's not quite the same as forcing you, but some ministries may get the idea that to be more inclusive will mean more viable in the long run as an institution...
 
2013-06-27 01:03:11 PM  
Then, the next step will be churches have to perform homosexual marriage or they will lose their tax-exempt status

There are much better reasons to revoke tax-exempt status from churches, but I'd take this one if they offered it.
 
2013-06-27 01:03:13 PM  

BMulligan: grumpfuff: Well, I can put you in touch with a few dominatrix's who will handle that for you if you'd like

Go on...


Aww, you're in Seattle. Bit out of range for the ones I know. Though I don't really think you're serious. Anyway, how's the weather over there? Raining?


Satanic_Hamster: GhostFish: An idiot, or someone who's being derisively flippant. I'm a bit of both.

Oh, I'm not saying you'd have to be an idiot to say it, I'm just saying most people are going to look at you like you're an idiot.

grumpfuff: I couldn't tell you where, but I'm positive it exists. I've had it, and it probably tastes even better than you imagine. I think it was a Middle Eastern-type place, but fark me if I remember anything more specific.

But was it's just MILK, or the goat's own mother's milk?  Because the latter makes it more awesome.

Have a lot of middle eastern places around here.  Usually just get lamb dishes and/or kibbe.  Going to have to do some research.


Eek. Fark if I know. Seeing as how they didn't have a pasture, I'd assume it was just milk(plus associated spices). But it was still delicious and I highly recommend it. Though you do have a point about that making it more awesome.
 
2013-06-27 01:03:38 PM  
I'm ok with them losing their tax exempt status for any reason what so ever.
 
2013-06-27 01:03:49 PM  

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.


There is no biblical rationale for opposing marriage equality.
"What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality" by Fr. Daniel Helminiak and
"A Question of Truth" by Fr. Gareth Moore have analyzed this subject to discussion.

In order to oppose marriage equality you first have to reject God for creating your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters; now you've violated the First Commandment. Next, you're invoking sections of Leviticus, ignoring prohibitions against being uncircumcised, wearing blended fabrics, eating pork, etc. and you are trying to apply a rule established to define a separate Israelite Kingdom so they wouldn't get assimilated into the Canaanite culture or simply be known as Egyptian refugees. Once the Israelite Kingdom was gone at the end of the Book of Kings, these rules had been overcome by events; Jesus said as much in the Gospel, and violated standing Jewish laws by entering the home of a gay Roman couple to heal a man (treating people of different religions, races, cultures and sexualities as you would want to be treated yourself; Christ showed the Golden Rule to be a trump card in Matthew).

By opposing marriage equality, are now in the position of having violated the First Commandment, thrown away the example of Christ and His example in Matthew, his comments later in the Gospel that it is most important that you love, and if you are in the United States, the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

You are an immoral and wicked man, and are in no place to preach to others.
 
2013-06-27 01:05:34 PM  

2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.


I see another person who confuses marriage and weddings.  The state handles marriages, churches have weddings.  Please stop conflating the two.
 
2013-06-27 01:06:20 PM  

Foundling: Dimensio:



You, sir, just got trolled.

/can we call Dim "Pocket Ninja Jr" yet?
 
2013-06-27 01:06:47 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: BMulligan: There used to be a gay bar here in Seattle called Tug's, which conducted "breeders' night" one night a week. That was where I first heard Soft Cell's version of "Tainted Love."

Were you not alive during the 80's or 90's?  :0


Yes. It was the early 80's when I went to Tug's with my wife and a few friends and heard "Tainted Love." It was available only as an import 12" single at the time - I went out and bought it the next day.
 
2013-06-27 01:07:40 PM  

2 grams: It is the same system we have today with name changes. . Your'e aboslutley right. It just shuts up the idoits who arguing over the word "Marraige" on both sides of the issue.


No, it doesn't. That's the problem.
 
2013-06-27 01:08:03 PM  

Foundling: Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.

There is no biblical rationale for opposing marriage ...


Counter-troll alert!
 
2013-06-27 01:10:27 PM  

grumpfuff: Foundling: Dimensio:


You, sir, just got trolled.

/can we call Dim "Pocket Ninja Jr" yet?


Eh, on the other hand, he brings up a fascinating counter-argument for anyone who tries the "it's against the bible" card...
 
2013-06-27 01:10:43 PM  

grumpfuff: Aww, you're in Seattle. Bit out of range for the ones I know. Though I don't really think you're serious.


I might be, aside from the fact that my wife would probably object.

Anyway, how's the weather over there? Raining?

As a matter of fact, it is. But the rain will stop this afternoon, and we'll be in the 90's by Monday - which is almost unprecedented at this time of year.
 
2013-06-27 01:11:29 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: grumpfuff: I couldn't tell you where, but I'm positive it exists. I've had it, and it probably tastes even better than you imagine. I think it was a Middle Eastern-type place, but fark me if I remember anything more specific.

But was it's just MILK, or the goat's own mother's milk? Because the latter makes it more awesome.

Have a lot of middle eastern places around here. Usually just get lamb dishes and/or kibbe. Going to have to do some research.


As originally written, only its mother's milk. As applied for the last thousand years or so (if not more?), all milk.

Used to be, milk and meat came from potentially the same animal, or someone in its family - a farmer owns some cows, one of whom may be your steak's momma and therefore gave the milk that you're using to seethe the steak. So rather than have to source all of your milk and meat through the supply chain, they just broadened the prohibition. ("They" used to do that a lot.)

As a metaphor or concept, though, it seems pretty clear. You don't destroy something and then use what should have been its sustenance to further reduce it.
 
2013-06-27 01:12:43 PM  

IlGreven: grumpfuff: Foundling: Dimensio:


You, sir, just got trolled.

/can we call Dim "Pocket Ninja Jr" yet?

Eh, on the other hand, he brings up a fascinating counter-argument for anyone who tries the "it's against the bible" card...


Oh, totally, which is why he got a "sir" instead of a nelson.jpg.


BMulligan: grumpfuff: Aww, you're in Seattle. Bit out of range for the ones I know. Though I don't really think you're serious.

I might be, aside from the fact that my wife would probably object.

Anyway, how's the weather over there? Raining?

As a matter of fact, it is. But the rain will stop this afternoon, and we'll be in the 90's by Monday - which is almost unprecedented at this time of year.


Pfft, I'll find one for her too. Double the fun! As to the weather, I remember reading somewhere that it rains like 300 days a year there, hence the joke. Is it actually like that? I've never been further west than Ohio, unfortunately.
 
2013-06-27 01:13:29 PM  

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.

assets0.ordienetworks.com

I am stealing this.
 
2013-06-27 01:13:36 PM  
I wonder what Jesus would have said if had been asked about paying taxes?

Probably something about "Thou shall pay no taxes to thine big liberal government."

Too bad Jesus was too busy preaching about gays and abortion to address the issue.


Jesus would have never let his followers pay taxes, especially if the government spent the money to help people.

/What have the romans ever done for us?
 
2013-06-27 01:14:09 PM  

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.


Cry some more, breeder.
 
2013-06-27 01:16:47 PM  

grumpfuff: I remember reading somewhere that it rains like 300 days a year there


No, that's not true. We don't have many more rainy days than a lot of cities do, and in terms of inches of precipitation, lots of places get more rain than Seattle. What we do have, however, is more cloudy days than any other major American city - maybe not 300, but close to it.
 
2013-06-27 01:16:51 PM  

Parthenogenetic: clambam: Some years ago I was best man at a Catholic wedding. We were running through the rehearsal and the priest said "And at this point the best man and the maid of honor kneel." I said "Excuse me father but I'm Jewish. I will be happy to lower my head to show respect but I can't kneel in a Catholic church." He said "Either you kneel or the wedding's off. Find another best man if you want but I won't perform the service if you don't kneel." When we got to that part of the service I hovered with my knees above the stairs, gritting my teeth and seething with anger. After the ceremony I went off to find the priest and punch him in the nose, but he had collected his check and left.

"Next up, a bizarre and terrifying story about an angry Jew who assaulted an innocent Catholic priest... at his friend's wedding!  Governor Palin and Senator Santorum will join our panel to discuss modern day blood libel after this commercial break, here on Fox News Sunday.  Be right back."  *winks, uncrosses and recrosses legs, adjusts miniskirt*


Damn, you're right. Good thing I didn't find him.
 
2013-06-27 01:17:58 PM  
Bwhahahaha.

The great thing about the 1st amendment is the DOMA ruling has 100% no effect on whether or not churches have to perform a gay marriage.

I mean, I'd prefer to strip religious leaders of the power to legally marry people, as that does seem like a violation of the separation of church and state.  Why the fark is the government investing ANY power in a priest, rabbi, imam, or other religious leader?

It's not even that convenient for a soon to be married couple.  You're already down at the county clerk's office to get the license, then you take it to the church, then someone takes it back to the clerks office.   You can pop over to the magistrate or justice of the peace and take care of the legal stuff on the first visit if you want, and then you're free to get the religious or non-religious ceremony from anyone that will marry you.
 
2013-06-27 01:18:53 PM  

Dimensio: God's law


If the Feelthy Queers are breaking God's law, then God can arrest them.
 
2013-06-27 01:19:36 PM  

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.


Potatoes that were pouring like an avalanche, coming down the mountain?
 
2013-06-27 01:21:01 PM  

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.


I looked forward, and you don't seem to be getting the love you deserve for this comment. Very funny.

/No homo.
 
2013-06-27 01:21:14 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Tomahawk513: Can I stomp on the glass?

Always gotta be one buzzkill at every party...

// look up that tradition
// it's not a happy thing, despite what pop culture has made it out to be


Well, you learn something new everyday.
 
2013-06-27 01:22:27 PM  

Karac: not actively being an asshole


I feel like I know all the words on their own, but they make no sense together like that. Is this some sort of MadLibs?
 
2013-06-27 01:25:40 PM  

Parthenogenetic: God Is My Co-Pirate: Sgt Otter: "So where do you want to have our wedding, honey?"
"Well, we could do it at the church that we actually attend, with our minister whom we've known for years..."
"Or?"
"Let's do it at a place we've never been to, that openly despises us, conducted by a guy who is going to be scowling and pissed off during the entire ceremony!"
"It will be such a magical day!"

There was a great story a while back about a couple who got married overseas in...Mauritius? Madagascar?  And the local minister hated tourist weddings, and just smiled while swearing at them the whole time in his native tongue, calling the bride a whore, etc.

Oooo, so close.  The Maldives.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/paradise-wedding-that-w as -lost-in-translation-2119536.html


Dammit!  This is why I always lose at those sporcle geography quizzes.
 
2013-06-27 01:25:42 PM  

BMulligan: grumpfuff: I remember reading somewhere that it rains like 300 days a year there

No, that's not true. We don't have many more rainy days than a lot of cities do, and in terms of inches of precipitation, lots of places get more rain than Seattle. What we do have, however, is more cloudy days than any other major American city - maybe not 300, but close to it.


For a sun-hater like myself, that sounds like a good thing.
 
2013-06-27 01:27:56 PM  

2 grams: But why wouldn't it work?


Because the Christian Conservative wouldn't agree.  Go look at all the state laws and amendments banning gay marriage and you'll see many also have language that ban civil unions or anything that resembles marriage.  They're the ones that forced gays to go for full on marriage because they refused to compromise to civil unions when this issue started getting big several years back.
 
2013-06-27 01:29:33 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Used to be, milk and meat came from potentially the same animal, or someone in its family - a farmer owns some cows, one of whom may be your steak's momma and therefore gave the milk that you're using to seethe the steak. So rather than have to source all of your milk and meat through the supply chain, they just broadened the prohibition. ("They" used to do that a lot.)

As a metaphor or concept, though, it seems pretty clear. You don't destroy something and then use what should have been its sustenance to further reduce it.


You do if it's delicious, dammit.

Like having a chicken stuffed with it's own eggs.
 
2013-06-27 01:29:47 PM  

lemurs: The point of a separate of Church and State is that it works both ways, which is something fundies on the Church side should keep in mind every time they think there shouldn't be one.


Actually you may have struck on something here. Conservatives don't think there is a separation of Church and State. They think the US government was inspired by God. So the fact that the government is allowing something that some churches disagree with means, in their eyes, that all churches will have to allow it.

It's stupid stacked on stupid but it is something conservatives actually believe.
 
2013-06-27 01:33:06 PM  

2 grams: You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.


No. No, it isn't. It really, really, really farking isn't. It's closer to a freaking property transaction than anything religious historically, and is much more an issue of legal and economic partnership than spiritual.

The first definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster:   the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This is not a concept owned by any church. This is a concept owned by any two people who want to codify their commitment to each other as a domestic partnership. That is what marriage IS.
 
2013-06-27 01:33:06 PM  

12349876: 2 grams: But why wouldn't it work?

Because the Christian Conservative wouldn't agree.  Go look at all the state laws and amendments banning gay marriage and you'll see many also have language that ban civil unions or anything that resembles marriage.  They're the ones that forced gays to go for full on marriage because they refused to compromise to civil unions when this issue started getting big several years back.


And I'll add, remember it was Vermont allowing CIVIL UNIONS in 2000 to gays (a compromise by that libbiest of all libs Howard Dean to follow a court ruling without using the word marriage) that started the massive drive to pass all of those laws and constitutional amendments.
 
2013-06-27 01:33:09 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Churches finally having to catch up with the 21st Century?


Yup.
IF this moronic conspiracy ended up (somehow, dunno) coming true, I'd LOL.
 
2013-06-27 01:34:32 PM  
Just like we force churches, mosques, synagogues and temples to perform marriages for people of other faiths.

Wait...do we do that?

Oh, that's right - we don't.
 
2013-06-27 01:37:22 PM  

grumpfuff: BMulligan: grumpfuff: I remember reading somewhere that it rains like 300 days a year there

No, that's not true. We don't have many more rainy days than a lot of cities do, and in terms of inches of precipitation, lots of places get more rain than Seattle. What we do have, however, is more cloudy days than any other major American city - maybe not 300, but close to it.

For a sun-hater like myself, that sounds like a good thing.


It's an exceedingly strange place to live, and not everyone is well suited to it. I had to move away for a decade before I accepted that this is actually where I belong.
 
2013-06-27 01:38:19 PM  

Tamater: Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.

Potatoes that were pouring like an avalanche, coming ...


I was thinking more that they would be potatoes to be made into French fries, symbolic of our slouching toward French customs and that those who were blind to this encroach would only realise the true horror of becoming more like France when Michelle Obama wore another sleeveless dress.
 
2013-06-27 01:39:47 PM  

GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can. We have special powers of persuasion.
We just haven't used them until now because we like getting strung up, dragged behind cars, and kicked in the teeth.

But a decade or so ago, Satan called up the leaders of the Gay Agenda and told us we had to start using our mind-control powers for things other than seducing the occasional drunk fratboy.
So now we're dead set on forcing everyone to engage in our weddings, where the food and music will actually be good. Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.


Srsly.
Chocolate fountains?
No open bar?
 
2013-06-27 01:40:50 PM  

BMulligan: grumpfuff: BMulligan: grumpfuff: I remember reading somewhere that it rains like 300 days a year there

No, that's not true. We don't have many more rainy days than a lot of cities do, and in terms of inches of precipitation, lots of places get more rain than Seattle. What we do have, however, is more cloudy days than any other major American city - maybe not 300, but close to it.

For a sun-hater like myself, that sounds like a good thing.

It's an exceedingly strange place to live, and not everyone is well suited to it. I had to move away for a decade before I accepted that this is actually where I belong.


So exactly how I feel about NJ, though I only had to go away to college to realize it.

/Welcome to New Jersey, where the weak are killed and eaten.
//I'm from New Jersey, don't worry, we don't like you either.
///Two actual shirts you can buy around here.
 
2013-06-27 01:41:23 PM  

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is [...] potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.


*standing ovation*
Damn, you're good! Now I don't feel so bad about getting hooked in the atheism thread the other day.
 
2013-06-27 01:45:07 PM  

odinsposse: Actually you may have struck on something here. Conservatives don't think there is a separation of Church and State. They think the US government was inspired by God. So the fact that the government is allowing something that some churches disagree with means, in their eyes, that all churches will have to allow it.


Just to be more specific, they don't believe in separation between their Church and the State.  Promoting their own symbols and beliefs is okay, but another religion doing the same thing is not okay (e.g. Christmas displays).  Conversely, the State telling them what to do is not okay, but the State telling another religion what to do is okay (e.g. mosque locations).  It's a pretty consistent double-standard.
 
2013-06-27 01:48:30 PM  

lemurs: odinsposse: Actually you may have struck on something here. Conservatives don't think there is a separation of Church and State. They think the US government was inspired by God. So the fact that the government is allowing something that some churches disagree with means, in their eyes, that all churches will have to allow it.

Just to be more specific, they don't believe in separation between their Church and the State.  Promoting their own symbols and beliefs is okay, but another religion doing the same thing is not okay (e.g. Christmas displays).  Conversely, the State telling them what to do is not okay, but the State telling another religion what to do is okay (e.g. mosque locations).  It's a pretty consistent double-standard.


i726.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-27 01:50:14 PM  

lockers: So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.


As a breeder, I have to say, if you take much offense to that term you have entirely too few real problems in your life.
 
2013-06-27 01:51:52 PM  
"In this opinion, is the absolutely inevitable seed of essentially nationalizing gay marriage in the way Roe nationalized and abolished all the abortion laws."

And that's why abortions are freely available to any woman at any time.
 
2013-06-27 01:55:30 PM  

grumpfuff: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.

I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"

Put down the vodka, buddy. I never said that people ARE justified, I said they feel justified. It is exactly the divisive language that GhostFish used that muddies this debate. It is clear cut that sexual orientation is not something we should discriminate against, and you condone him using a pejorative against sexual orientation. It is comic in it's stupidity.


Err...breeder doesn't belong just to the gays. I know quite a few heterosexuals that don't want kids who've used that term to describe people with kids for yeaaaaars.


Um, I'm a Breeder and I don't care. I've mostly heard it in fun, like I think Ghostfish was going for.

If I hear it in a derogatory connotation, I just figure the 'your momma' would work.

Unless I'm being harassed by a roving gang of test tube, lab grown babies.
Then, I might be offended.
 
2013-06-27 01:56:59 PM  

Bloody William: 2 grams: You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.

No. No, it isn't. It really, really, really farking isn't. It's closer to a freaking property transaction than anything religious historically, and is much more an issue of legal and economic partnership than spiritual.

The first definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster:   the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This is not a concept owned by any church. This is a concept owned by any two people who want to codify their commitment to each other as a domestic partnership. That is what marriage IS.


Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?
 
2013-06-27 01:57:08 PM  

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.


So we should stick to the Biblical definition of marriage.

Hey, you like that girl, but she's not interested in you? Just rape her and pay her father - then she has to marry you! Already married but want a few more wives? Go get 'em, tiger!

Widows with no male children? Don't worry - you can...wait, not "can"...are required to marry your brother in law!

www.janetober.com
 
2013-06-27 01:58:06 PM  

monoski: You cannot even be a non-greek guest if it is a orthodox greek wedding


Huh.  That seems odd, as I personally attended an Orthodox wedding at a very large church in the wealthy suburbs of Athens, Greece (Bride was the niece of a law school friend of my father's) while living there in the early `80s.

No one asked me my affiliation (Atheist) nor indicated that being of the wrong faith/nationality would bar my entry.  And I didn't speak a word of Greek at the time, so it was pretty obvious that I was not a local.
 
2013-06-27 01:58:30 PM  

TheMysticS: Unless I'm being harassed by a roving gang of test tube, lab grown babies.


Ah, yes - the dreaded "tubers." Or, as I like to call them, "spuds."
 
2013-06-27 02:01:30 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.

So we should stick to the Biblical definition of mar ...


Geez, you just keep getting bites man, even after it's been explained. 15/10 and a gold star. The potato avalance was a nice way to tie it all together.
 
2013-06-27 02:04:26 PM  
All churches should lose their tax-exempt status regardless.....churches are just money-making enterprises that operate in houses of worship instead of offices.
And the people that give churches money are people who are too dim-witted to understand that they don't have to join a church for God to love them or hear their prayers (I only stopped being a dim-wit about 8 years ago.......).
 
2013-06-27 02:08:27 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Hey, you like that girl, but she's not interested in you? Just rape her and pay her father - then she has to marry you!


That would sure as shiat make my life easier, that's for sure.
 
2013-06-27 02:10:12 PM  

clambam: monoski: James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.

You cannot even be a non-greek guest if it is a orthodox greek wedding

Some years ago I was best man at a Catholic wedding. We were running through the rehearsal and the priest said "And at this point the best man and the maid of honor kneel." I said "Excuse me father but I'm Jewish. I will be happy to lower my head to show respect but I can't kneel in a Catholic church." He said "Either you kneel or the wedding's off. Find another best man if you want but I won't perform the service if you don't kneel." When we got to that part of the service I hovered with my knees above the stairs, gritting my teeth and seething with anger. After the ceremony I went off to find the priest and punch him in the nose, but he had collected his check and left.


Why did I think you are a woman?
Have you been swapping genders?
 
2013-06-27 02:12:47 PM  
Geez, from this and all similar controversies, you would think that religion is really just a tax-exempt way to treat other people like shiat.
 
2013-06-27 02:13:07 PM  
I'm waiting on Polygamy to be legalized.

It's just that I don't know if I want to have multiple wives,
or be one of multiple husbands...

decisions, decisions.  Which is easier??
 
2013-06-27 02:16:00 PM  

rogue49: I'm waiting on Polygamy to be legalized.

It's just that I don't know if I want to have multiple wives,
or be one of multiple husbands...

decisions, decisions.  Which is easier??


Why not both?
 
2013-06-27 02:17:12 PM  

BMulligan: rogue49: I'm waiting on Polygamy to be legalized.

It's just that I don't know if I want to have multiple wives,
or be one of multiple husbands...

decisions, decisions.  Which is easier??

Why not both?


Damn, there was supposed to be an image to go with that:

images.thecarconnection.com
 
2013-06-27 02:17:19 PM  

BMulligan: rogue49: I'm waiting on Polygamy to be legalized.

It's just that I don't know if I want to have multiple wives,
or be one of multiple husbands...

decisions, decisions.  Which is easier??

Why not both?


I think there are a few intentional communities around that started that way.
 
2013-06-27 02:17:54 PM  

d23: Actually with as lax as the corporate laws are if you could figure out a way file a corporate charter for your harem then you probably have more advantages than with marriage anyway!



More than once I've contemplated trying to register my family as a corporation, and seeing what sort of tax loopholes would result.
 
2013-06-27 02:19:49 PM  

abrannan: d23: Actually with as lax as the corporate laws are if you could figure out a way file a corporate charter for your harem then you probably have more advantages than with marriage anyway!


More than once I've contemplated trying to register my family as a corporation, and seeing what sort of tax loopholes would result.


Corporations are people, my friend.  You would have to register each member of your family as a corporation and then try to establish relationships between each corporation that would be favorable in taxation terms.  Consider having one of your children move to Switzerland.
 
2013-06-27 02:22:43 PM  

rogue49: I'm waiting on Polygamy to be legalized.

It's just that I don't know if I want to have multiple wives,
or be one of multiple husbands...

decisions, decisions.  Which is easier??


If deciding is tough and you never want to get to make a decision again, go with the multiple wives version. It might even be enough to just get one wife.
 
2013-06-27 02:23:13 PM  
"Nationalize" gay marriage? So the state will take over the means of production for gay marriage and become its exclusive supplier?

Makes sense I guess. I mean you've already got Obamaphones and Obamacars; now you'll have Obamarriages too.
 
2013-06-27 02:24:33 PM  

Triple Oak: Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?


Dear Christ, how can anyone have read 2 grams and come away with the exact opposite of what was said?

License/civil ceremony without Church = MARRIED

Church without License = NOT MARRIED

The state recognition is the only thing that matters/makes you married.

Church ceremony is irrelevant to a legal marriage.
 
2013-06-27 02:27:36 PM  
You may ask youself:

Deucednuisance:
Dear Christ, how can anyone have read 2 grams and come away with the exact opposite of what was said?

You mean the way that you just did, Mr. Nuisance?

Yes, exactly like that.

Management regrets the error, and slinks off for coffee.
 
2013-06-27 02:28:26 PM  
A status they should never have had in the first place, so....

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-27 02:36:24 PM  

BMulligan: TheMysticS: Unless I'm being harassed by a roving gang of test tube, lab grown babies.

Ah, yes - the dreaded "tubers." Or, as I like to call them, "spuds."


They're through bein' cool
 
2013-06-27 02:38:42 PM  

Deucednuisance: Triple Oak: Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?

Dear Christ, how can anyone have read 2 grams and come away with the exact opposite of what was said?

License/civil ceremony without Church = MARRIED

Church without License = NOT MARRIED

The state recognition is the only thing that matters/makes you married.

Church ceremony is irrelevant to a legal marriage.


Not to Christians. Remember, the CHURCH IS THE STATE HERP DERP!ONE1!!!
 
2013-06-27 02:39:34 PM  

Triple Oak: Bloody William: 2 grams: You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.

No. No, it isn't. It really, really, really farking isn't. It's closer to a freaking property transaction than anything religious historically, and is much more an issue of legal and economic partnership than spiritual.

The first definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster:   the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This is not a concept owned by any church. This is a concept owned by any two people who want to codify their commitment to each other as a domestic partnership. That is what marriage IS.

Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?


No. You're taking my one sentence out of context and is entirely devoid of my orignal point. I was suggesting  get the State out of marrige , and all couples regardless  of same sex, or not get a Civil Union.  A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever.  I was wondering if this would then shut up the folks who on both sides wanted to claim the right to "Marriage" and end the debates of "What is a legal marriae?" Can A man marry his turtle? Can we force the church to marry a gay jew and underage muslim girl?" crap.
 
2013-06-27 02:42:16 PM  

2 grams: Triple Oak: Bloody William: 2 grams: You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.

No. No, it isn't. It really, really, really farking isn't. It's closer to a freaking property transaction than anything religious historically, and is much more an issue of legal and economic partnership than spiritual.

The first definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster:   the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This is not a concept owned by any church. This is a concept owned by any two people who want to codify their commitment to each other as a domestic partnership. That is what marriage IS.

Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?

No. You're taking my one sentence out of context and is entirely devoid of my orignal point. I was suggesting  get the State out of marrige , and all couples regardless  of same sex, or not get a Civil Union.  A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever.  I was wondering if this would then shut up the folks who on both sides wanted to claim the right to "Marriage" and end the debates of "What is a legal marriae?" Can A man marry his turtle? Can we force the church to marry a gay jew and underage muslim girl?" crap.


Appeasment never shuts up bigots. They must be trampled, shunned, proven wrong, and ultimately forgotten in the mists of decades until their very existence is looked upon with shame.

"Civil unions" won't do that.
 
2013-06-27 02:42:31 PM  

TheMysticS: BMulligan: TheMysticS: Unless I'm being harassed by a roving gang of test tube, lab grown babies.

Ah, yes - the dreaded "tubers." Or, as I like to call them, "spuds."

They're through bein' cool


Thank you.
 
2013-06-27 02:43:44 PM  

2 grams: No. You're taking my one sentence out of context and is entirely devoid of my orignal point. I was suggesting get the State out of marrige , and all couples regardless of same sex, or not get a Civil Union. A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever. I was wondering if this would then shut up the folks who on both sides wanted to claim the right to "Marriage" and end the debates of "What is a legal marriae?" Can A man marry his turtle? Can we force the church to marry a gay jew and underage muslim girl?" crap.


The point you're leaving out is that many Conservatives want NO RECOGNITION IN ANY FORM of homosexual relationships.  It's why it was CIVIL UNIONS in Vermont that caused them to go crazy with all of the state constitutional amendments.  And it's why many of those amendments have language like Texas

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
 
2013-06-27 02:43:46 PM  
It's funny how conservative " intellectual" arguments go right for the derp when they actually do have something to gripe about. It's just not the fantasy the are actually griping about.

Churches will have to give benefits to married gay couples.
 
2013-06-27 02:45:39 PM  

2 grams: Triple Oak: Bloody William: 2 grams: You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.

No. No, it isn't. It really, really, really farking isn't. It's closer to a freaking property transaction than anything religious historically, and is much more an issue of legal and economic partnership than spiritual.

The first definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster:   the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This is not a concept owned by any church. This is a concept owned by any two people who want to codify their commitment to each other as a domestic partnership. That is what marriage IS.

Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?

No. You're taking my one sentence out of context and is entirely devoid of my orignal point. I was suggesting  get the State out of marrige , and all couples regardless  of same sex, or not get a Civil Union.  A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever.  I was wondering if this would then shut up the folks who on both sides wanted to claim the right to "Marriage" and end the debates of "What is a legal marriae?" Can A man marry his turtle? Can we force the church to marry a gay jew and underage muslim girl?" crap.


We already have what you're talking about. It's called "civil marriage."
 
2013-06-27 02:47:35 PM  

2 grams: A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever.


You realize, heaven help us, that you are describing the situation as it already exists?

You're just worried who gets to use the word that has described that situation only for the last few thousand years.

Why do you want to allow churches to steal ownership of the word?

Your "great idea" changes nothing else.
 
2013-06-27 02:48:04 PM  

Aldon: It's funny how conservative " intellectual" arguments go right for the derp when they actually do have something to gripe about. It's just not the fantasy the are actually griping about.

Churches will have to give benefits to married gay couples.*


*employees
 
2013-06-27 02:48:30 PM  
12349876:
The point you're leaving out is that many Conservatives want NO RECOGNITION IN ANY FORM of homosexual relationships.  It's why it was CIVIL UNIONS in Vermont that caused them to go crazy with all of the state constitutional amendments.  And it's why many of those amendments have language like Texas

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.


Got it. We need the SC to overide the state as unconsitutional.

See? I did learn something today.
 
2013-06-27 02:53:51 PM  

2 grams: 12349876:
The point you're leaving out is that many Conservatives want NO RECOGNITION IN ANY FORM of homosexual relationships.  It's why it was CIVIL UNIONS in Vermont that caused them to go crazy with all of the state constitutional amendments.  And it's why many of those amendments have language like Texas

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Got it. We need the SC to overide the state as unconsitutional.

See? I did learn something today.


In an earlier post, you cited "shut up both sides" as a primary reason for wanting to ditch marriage as a civil term and I'm here to tell you that's not going to work based on my evidence in the previous post.
 
2013-06-27 02:56:20 PM  

BMulligan: TheMysticS: BMulligan: TheMysticS: Unless I'm being harassed by a roving gang of test tube, lab grown babies.

Ah, yes - the dreaded "tubers." Or, as I like to call them, "spuds."

They're through bein' cool

Thank you.


That's my fave.
 
2013-06-27 03:00:22 PM  

gimmegimme: abrannan: d23: Actually with as lax as the corporate laws are if you could figure out a way file a corporate charter for your harem then you probably have more advantages than with marriage anyway!


More than once I've contemplated trying to register my family as a corporation, and seeing what sort of tax loopholes would result.

Corporations are people, my friend.  You would have to register each member of your family as a corporation and then try to establish relationships between each corporation that would be favorable in taxation terms.  Consider having one of your children move to Switzerland.


If I wanted to optimize it, sure.  But I could establish my family as just one corporation, sell my house to that corporation and have it provided back to me as a perk, same with my vehicles, major purchases, etc.  They'd be business expenses, and I could claim depreciation, etc.  The difficulties come in my earnings as an individual, and being able to tie those to the corporation without having to get myself hired as a 1099 contractor.  Find some way to get the best of both worlds (corporate veil/personhood and marriage protections)
 
2013-06-27 03:12:50 PM  

CPennypacker: Pincy: CPennypacker: Yesterday was my second anniversary, but because of this decision, our traditional marriage was destroyed. We were forcibly auto-divorced and now I'm living in sin with a donkey. Thanks a lot SCOTUS.

I can't decide who has it worse, you or the donkey?

Definitely the donkey


Haha, Serious Black, you're so funny!
 
2013-06-27 03:12:57 PM  

2 grams: 12349876:
The point you're leaving out is that many Conservatives want NO RECOGNITION IN ANY FORM of homosexual relationships.  It's why it was CIVIL UNIONS in Vermont that caused them to go crazy with all of the state constitutional amendments.  And it's why many of those amendments have language like Texas

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Got it. We need the SC to overide the state as unconsitutional.

See? I did learn something today.


Christ, you're thick.

After the SC ruling, that part of Texas' law will simply not hold up. They would be fools to pursue it, and if they did fight it in court, guess what? THE SC WOULD RULE THEIR LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Supremacy Clause. Read it, for fark's sake.
 
2013-06-27 03:15:45 PM  

2 grams: Triple Oak: Bloody William: 2 grams: You want to be married, go to a church. It has no legal standing. It's a santification  before god.

No. No, it isn't. It really, really, really farking isn't. It's closer to a freaking property transaction than anything religious historically, and is much more an issue of legal and economic partnership than spiritual.

The first definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster:   the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This is not a concept owned by any church. This is a concept owned by any two people who want to codify their commitment to each other as a domestic partnership. That is what marriage IS.

Wow 2 grams, that's a really stupid statement. Apparently going to a legal office like a courthouse and getting a "marriage license" is just for show?

No. You're taking my one sentence out of context and is entirely devoid of my orignal point. I was suggesting  get the State out of marrige , and all couples regardless  of same sex, or not get a Civil Union.  A Civil Union would then be the ONLY legally recognized union, and a marriage would become a personal santification by church, temple, social club...what ever.  I was wondering if this would then shut up the folks who on both sides wanted to claim the right to "Marriage" and end the debates of "What is a legal marriae?" Can A man marry his turtle? Can we force the church to marry a gay jew and underage muslim girl?" crap.


Unfortunately it would be nearly impossible to get the bible-beaters from adjusting to what "marriage" means. And the language would change; "We're married" versus something like "We're unionized". Would husband and wife be acceptable terms for state-approved unions? It's really a mess. Extremists want to run with any change of marriage and say "Oh, well why not change it to non-humans and watch the world fall apart?" when the discussion has never been about non-humans to begin with. Once people move on with their tempered belief system (which will take longer than you or I have on this planet), acceptance can actually be a thing.

/apologies for the comment before, caught the cut-out section and ran with it
 
2013-06-27 03:19:52 PM  
No church is required to perform weddings. PERIOD.
 
2013-06-27 03:23:14 PM  

vernonFL: 1955: This school desegregation decision will mean blacks have equal rights in all 50 states!

Pretty soon white waitresses will have to serve negros at lunch counters and Negroes will be able to sit wherever they want on the bus.


And, republicans will have to act like human beings! (talk about an acting job)
 
2013-06-27 03:23:37 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: CPennypacker: Pincy: CPennypacker: Yesterday was my second anniversary, but because of this decision, our traditional marriage was destroyed. We were forcibly auto-divorced and now I'm living in sin with a donkey. Thanks a lot SCOTUS.

I can't decide who has it worse, you or the donkey?

Definitely the donkey

Haha, Serious Black, you're so funny!


Go shove an unlubricated broomstick up your rectum.
 
2013-06-27 03:26:53 PM  

TemperedEdge: Hey. You want to fix a budget problem? Simple solution: Tax the church. They've been getting a free ride for far too long, and not just in American history. I'm all for it, whether they break down and accept marriage equality or not.


They shoulda been taxed all along.  In face, I'm for the "superstition double tax"!  If you believe in superstitious nonsense, you should be taxed double.  We don't want to encourage nonsense in our society, do we?  Double-Tax all churches!!!
 
2013-06-27 04:00:16 PM  

Bloody William: 2 grams: 12349876:
The point you're leaving out is that many Conservatives want NO RECOGNITION IN ANY FORM of homosexual relationships.  It's why it was CIVIL UNIONS in Vermont that caused them to go crazy with all of the state constitutional amendments.  And it's why many of those amendments have language like Texas

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Got it. We need the SC to overide the state as unconsitutional.

See? I did learn something today.

Christ, you're thick.

After the SC ruling, that part of Texas' law will simply not hold up. They would be fools to pursue it, and if they did fight it in court, guess what? THE SC WOULD RULE THEIR LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Supremacy Clause. Read it, for fark's sake.


Wow. you really come across as a dick.

Goodbye.
 
2013-06-27 04:21:39 PM  

lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.


You on the other hand managed to single-handedly derail half the thread by taking him too seriously. If you'd read the whole post, you might have noticed its satirical nature. A phrase like:

"Satan called up the leaders of the Gay Agenda and told us we had to start using our mind-control powers for things other than seducing the occasional drunk fratboy."

is what people call "tongue-in-cheek".
 
2013-06-27 04:35:10 PM  
You say that like it's a BAD thing.
 
2013-06-27 05:05:58 PM  
Surprised that nobody in this thread has so far posted the story of Chastity Bumgardner. A church in Ohio refused to hold her wedding there because it was an interracial couple. As far as I know, the church didn't face any legal consequences for that.
 
2013-06-27 05:34:40 PM  
 
2013-06-27 05:37:10 PM  
Shakers don't perform weddings at all.  (Not coincidentally, there aren't very many Shakers anymore.)
 
2013-06-27 06:00:13 PM  

TheMysticS: Um, I'm a Breeder and I don't care. I've mostly heard it in fun, like I think Ghostfish was going for.

If I hear it in a derogatory connotation, I just figure the 'your momma' would work.

Unless I'm being harassed by a roving gang of test tube, lab grown babies.
Then, I might be offended.


I'm a heterosexual and I find breeder to be offense.  Even if I don't plan to have kids homosexuals refer to us in the same term like we were a bunch of porch monkeys.
 
2013-06-27 09:23:20 PM  
Like they did with interracial marriages right?

/Frigging Morans.
//Apologies if someone already pointed this out.
///Three for good luck.
 
2013-06-27 09:40:13 PM  

Marshal805: Like they did with interracial marriages right?

/Frigging Morans.
//Apologies if someone already pointed this out.
///Three for good luck.


Don't you get it, man?  This was the next stumble down the slippery slope after interracial marriages!  Clearly, this is snowballing out of control, and the only way to solve the problem is to go back in time and ensure that marriage is never invented at all!

Thanks, Obama!
 
2013-06-28 01:24:44 AM  

lawboy87: The government's granting a license and legally recognizing a gay couple as being "married" imposes NO DUTY upon any religious or private social organization to recognize them as being married.


Not quite true, as I understand; if they hire the sinner (whether that sin is an interracial or a gay marriage), they won't be able to deny spousal benefits offered to non-sinful spouses. But the ministerial exception makes it pretty easy to just leave such sinners unemployed.
 
2013-06-28 01:28:28 AM  
Oh look, yet another thing bigots are proving they are too stupid to understand.

Seriously, if there is one thing all these various butthurt displays are showing, it's that bigots are in fact very, very stupid people, baffled by and wildly delusional about the everyday mundane events of life. How do these people even put their pants on right?
 
2013-06-28 07:28:03 AM  

GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can. We have special powers of persuasion.
We just haven't used them until now because we like getting strung up, dragged behind cars, and kicked in the teeth.

But a decade or so ago, Satan called up the leaders of the Gay Agenda and told us we had to start using our mind-control powers for things other than seducing the occasional drunk fratboy.
So now we're dead set on forcing everyone to engage in our weddings, where the food and music will actually be good. Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.


I have been to one trangender wedding and a Jewish lesbian wedding in the last year and I have to admit you people put on a great show.

What? I can't say you people anymore?

If you ever get invited to a Jewish lesbian wedding you go. Don't even think about it.
 
2013-06-28 08:33:25 AM  
Eventually, everyone will be married to everyone else. Then we'll all get divorced. Just think of the chaos when everyone is everyone else's bitter ex.
 
2013-06-28 09:11:21 AM  

Greystoke: Eventually, everyone will be married to everyone else. Then we'll all get divorced. Just think of the chaos when everyone is everyone else's bitter ex.


You know how I know you don't know a lot of lesbians...
 
2013-06-28 09:41:29 AM  

s2s2s2: No church is required to perform weddings. PERIOD.


Precisely backwards.

"Wedding" is the ceremony, not the legally binding contract.  I won't even get into how your choice of verb should have informed you about the bassackwardness of what you just typed.

Correctly stated: "No church is required for a couple to enter into a marriage."

As one with an ardent avocation as a hairsplitter, I'm sure you can appreciate the distinction.
 
2013-06-28 07:03:55 PM  
great now the weedding chappel wlell smell like barbeque causce and coal cause of hell
 
Displayed 270 of 270 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report