Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

1913 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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