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 (2 years 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 12:48:27 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.
 
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