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.

(Reuters)   Hawaii now racing Illinois to become 15th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Thanks, Obama   (reuters.com) divider line 222
    More: Spiffy, Illinois, Hawaii, same-sex marriages, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, House Finance Committee, civil unions  
•       •       •

582 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Nov 2013 at 8:58 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-09 09:07:27 AM
Slowly but surely, we're making progress. Removing religion's boot from the throat of humanity takes time and strength.
 
2013-11-09 09:07:33 AM
One should expect no less from a place that named their football team the "Rainbow Warriors."
 
2013-11-09 09:08:18 AM
I am sure all the small government teabaggers will applaud this as government should have no say in who you choose to spend the rest of your life with.
 
2013-11-09 09:10:40 AM
Remember that guy saying after Minnesota legalized it that the other states that hadn't yet were basically never going to and that was a victory for them? Good times.
 
2013-11-09 09:22:43 AM
So this is what progress looks like.  A few small steps forward, a couple steps back, and then the walls come tumbling down. I need to remember this every time I feel frustrated with the ignorant, hateful half of America always standing in the way.
 
2013-11-09 09:24:22 AM
Everywhere he touches turns gay.  Damn him and his magical Time Machine / Gayinator
 
2013-11-09 09:27:12 AM

Shakin_Haitian: Slowly but surely, we're making progress. Removing religion's boot from the throat of humanity takes time and strength.


I think religion will end up being the least of your issues but hey, it makes a great straw man.
 
2013-11-09 09:35:30 AM

clowncar on fire: Shakin_Haitian: Slowly but surely, we're making progress. Removing religion's boot from the throat of humanity takes time and strength.

I think religion will end up being the least of your issues but hey, it makes a great straw man.


So religious types have ever done anything to oppose gay marriage ever is that what you're saying?
 
2013-11-09 09:36:38 AM

clowncar on fire: Shakin_Haitian: Slowly but surely, we're making progress. Removing religion's boot from the throat of humanity takes time and strength.

I think religion will end up being the least of your issues but hey, it makes a great straw man.


OK then.  So, make the case as to why to legally consenting adults who love each other and want to enter into a legal contract should not be able to do so because they have the same genitals WITHOUT using religion?
 
2013-11-09 09:37:51 AM
Not at all.  I'm saying there are is a lot more weightier issues out there other than a religious person telling you that you can't.
 
2013-11-09 09:38:41 AM

soaboutthat: clowncar on fire: Shakin_Haitian: Slowly but surely, we're making progress. Removing religion's boot from the throat of humanity takes time and strength.

I think religion will end up being the least of your issues but hey, it makes a great straw man.

OK then.  So, make the case as to why to legally consenting adults who love each other and want to enter into a legal contract should not be able to do so because they have the same genitals WITHOUT using religion?


"they be icky"

That's how it's usually argued.
 
2013-11-09 09:40:49 AM
Good. The more states that do this, the more likely federal legalization is. Once again, the South will have to have decency forced upon them.
 
2013-11-09 09:41:57 AM

Smoking GNU: soaboutthat: clowncar on fire: Shakin_Haitian: Slowly but surely, we're making progress. Removing religion's boot from the throat of humanity takes time and strength.

I think religion will end up being the least of your issues but hey, it makes a great straw man.

OK then.  So, make the case as to why to legally consenting adults who love each other and want to enter into a legal contract should not be able to do so because they have the same genitals WITHOUT using religion?

"they be icky"

That's how it's usually argued.


It's gross, but-but slippery slope!1!, and Mega-Church Jesus doesn't like it.  Those are the three core arguments.
 
2013-11-09 09:42:07 AM

QU!RK1019: So this is what progress looks like.  A few small steps forward, a couple steps back, and then the walls come tumbling down. I need to remember this every time I feel frustrated with the ignorant, hateful half of America always standing in the way.


Why DO we need to drag them kicking and screaming into the future? Why give them more chances to fark up other stuff?
 
2013-11-09 09:44:01 AM

It feels like the floodgates for equality are starting to open. It's about time.

Unfortunately there are plenty of people happy to be on the wrong side of history. I work with a few of them. It's a sad life they lead.

 
2013-11-09 09:44:12 AM

clowncar on fire: Not at all.  I'm saying there are is a lot more weightier issues out there other than a religious person telling you that you can't.


Such as?

I mean, isn't that the entire problem?
 
2013-11-09 09:44:52 AM

Smoking GNU: soaboutthat: clowncar on fire: Shakin_Haitian: Slowly but surely, we're making progress. Removing religion's boot from the throat of humanity takes time and strength.

I think religion will end up being the least of your issues but hey, it makes a great straw man.

OK then.  So, make the case as to why to legally consenting adults who love each other and want to enter into a legal contract should not be able to do so because they have the same genitals WITHOUT using religion?

"they be icky"

That's how it's usually argued.


It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.  History is rift with new religions simply because the old religion didn't meet their followers needs so finding or founding a gay friendly religion  shouldn't be all that difficult.
 
2013-11-09 09:45:50 AM

clowncar on fire: It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.


Again, what are the "other issues"?
 
2013-11-09 09:48:07 AM

cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.

Again, what are the "other issues"?


Legal and reproductive come to mind.
 
2013-11-09 09:50:49 AM

LordJiro: Good. The more states that do this, the more likely federal legalization is. Once again, the South will have to have decency forced upon them.


The irony of this statement is rather humorous.
 
2013-11-09 09:51:21 AM
It should have been the first.  Twenty farking years ago, the Hawaii Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry.  Every state we've seen pass constitutional amendments or whatever defining marriage as between a man and a woman - including Hawaii! - was a kneejerk reaction to that by people who weren't ready for the future. It's ironic that so many other states have now managed to do this  before Hawaii.
 
2013-11-09 09:52:06 AM

clowncar on fire: cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.

Again, what are the "other issues"?

Legal and reproductive come to mind.


In what respect? Legally it's a contract between two consenting adults. Reproduction is irrelevant to marriage; an infertile man and/or woman can enter into a marriage contract as it is.

Anything else you'd like cleared up?
 
2013-11-09 09:53:08 AM

clowncar on fire: cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.

Again, what are the "other issues"?

Legal and reproductive come to mind.


Do tell!
 
2013-11-09 09:55:50 AM

cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.

Again, what are the "other issues"?

Legal and reproductive come to mind.

In what respect? Legally it's a contract between two consenting adults. Reproduction is irrelevant to marriage; an infertile man and/or woman can enter into a marriage contract as it is.

Anything else you'd like cleared up?


So gay people don't enter a relationship other than as emotionless, financial equals, totally without the desire to have and raise kids?  Sounds like the recipe for the perfect marriage- at least from a legal stance.
 
2013-11-09 09:56:44 AM
Clowncar on Fire uses tired old argument.

It's not very effective.

Wait. Clowncar on Fire is Evolving...

Clowncar on Fire evolved from Troll type, to Troll/Bigot Hybrid type.

Clowncar on Fire uses tired old argument.

It's not very effective.
 
2013-11-09 09:57:41 AM

clowncar on fire: Smoking GNU: soaboutthat: clowncar on fire: Shakin_Haitian: Slowly but surely, we're making progress. Removing religion's boot from the throat of humanity takes time and strength.

I think religion will end up being the least of your issues but hey, it makes a great straw man.

OK then.  So, make the case as to why to legally consenting adults who love each other and want to enter into a legal contract should not be able to do so because they have the same genitals WITHOUT using religion?

"they be icky"

That's how it's usually argued.

It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.  History is rift with new religions simply because the old religion didn't meet their followers needs so finding or founding a gay friendly religion  shouldn't be all that difficult.


I've never seen any organization turn heterosexual PDAs into a national issue.
 
2013-11-09 09:57:48 AM

cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.

Again, what are the "other issues"?


Well for one, having to deal with concern trolls on internet forums mask their bigotry with reasons such as "legal and reproductive".
 
2013-11-09 09:58:21 AM

clowncar on fire: cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.

Again, what are the "other issues"?

Legal and reproductive come to mind.

In what respect? Legally it's a contract between two consenting adults. Reproduction is irrelevant to marriage; an infertile man and/or woman can enter into a marriage contract as it is.

Anything else you'd like cleared up?

So gay people don't enter a relationship other than as emotionless, financial equals, totally without the desire to have and raise kids?  Sounds like the recipe for the perfect marriage- at least from a legal stance.


So what specific legal issues are you talking about?
 
2013-11-09 09:59:29 AM

Heliovdrake: Clowncar on Fire uses tired old argument.

It's not very effective.

Wait. Clowncar on Fire is Evolving...

Clowncar on Fire evolved from Troll type, to Troll/Bigot Hybrid type.

Clowncar on Fire uses tired old argument.

It's not very effective.


Somehow, I don't think you believe this.

Same old tired "you don't agree me so your argument is invalid" is old and tired as well.
 
2013-11-09 10:00:16 AM

Infernalist: clowncar on fire: Smoking GNU: soaboutthat: clowncar on fire: Shakin_Haitian: Slowly but surely, we're making progress. Removing religion's boot from the throat of humanity takes time and strength.

I think religion will end up being the least of your issues but hey, it makes a great straw man.

OK then.  So, make the case as to why to legally consenting adults who love each other and want to enter into a legal contract should not be able to do so because they have the same genitals WITHOUT using religion?

"they be icky"

That's how it's usually argued.

It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.  History is rift with new religions simply because the old religion didn't meet their followers needs so finding or founding a gay friendly religion  shouldn't be all that difficult.

I've never seen any organization turn heterosexual PDAs into a national issue.


You've never been to school dances and military functions either then.
 
2013-11-09 10:03:00 AM
It's funny, people who biatch about PDA in the context of civil rights.
 
2013-11-09 10:04:45 AM

clowncar on fire: cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.

Again, what are the "other issues"?

Legal and reproductive come to mind.


Reproductive?
 
2013-11-09 10:07:15 AM

clowncar on fire: You've never been to school dances and military functions either then.


If something is national, I shouldn't have to get off my couch to find out about it.
 
2013-11-09 10:07:37 AM

clowncar on fire: cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.

Again, what are the "other issues"?

Legal and reproductive come to mind.

In what respect? Legally it's a contract between two consenting adults. Reproduction is irrelevant to marriage; an infertile man and/or woman can enter into a marriage contract as it is.

Anything else you'd like cleared up?

So gay people don't enter a relationship other than as emotionless, financial equals, totally without the desire to have and raise kids?  Sounds like the recipe for the perfect marriage- at least from a legal stance.


Huh? Where did I say that? You said there are legal and reproductive issues, and I explained why that isn't the case. I never said anything about emotions because you didn't bring that up as an issue. Care to explain why you thought that's what I meant?
 
2013-11-09 10:08:31 AM

clowncar on fire: Heliovdrake: Clowncar on Fire uses tired old argument.

It's not very effective.

Wait. Clowncar on Fire is Evolving...

Clowncar on Fire evolved from Troll type, to Troll/Bigot Hybrid type.

Clowncar on Fire uses tired old argument.

It's not very effective.

Somehow, I don't think you believe this.

Same old tired "you don't agree me so your argument is invalid" is old and tired as well.


No, you're using specious arguments and strawmen.
 
2013-11-09 10:10:27 AM

mab1823: clowncar on fire: cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.

Again, what are the "other issues"?

Legal and reproductive come to mind.

Reproductive?


Sure Clowncar believes either himself, and he is free to set the record straight on this, or that other people believe that a childless marriage should not be a legal marriage.  Because reasons. The big ones, you know the ones. Yeah those. Them. No need to list'em, cause everyone already knows'em.
 
2013-11-09 10:10:38 AM

Halli: clowncar on fire: cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.

Again, what are the "other issues"?

Legal and reproductive come to mind.

In what respect? Legally it's a contract between two consenting adults. Reproduction is irrelevant to marriage; an infertile man and/or woman can enter into a marriage contract as it is.

Anything else you'd like cleared up?

So gay people don't enter a relationship other than as emotionless, financial equals, totally without the desire to have and raise kids?  Sounds like the recipe for the perfect marriage- at least from a legal stance.

So what specific legal issues are you talking about?


Legal issues.  Probably heard the obvious ones before but they don't go away.  Traditional marriages have pretty specifically designed roles played out by the male and female participants to which most laws reflect. Current divorce law seems to recognize the female as needing to be supported (regardless of her economic status) as well as recognizing her as the primary caretaker for the children that they raise.  Even being gender centric, it's still not as easy as handing the kids over to mom and making the father pay.

This is one of many probable issues that will need be ironed out that would only be complicated by same sex relations.  Probably much more complicated than staring down a religious fanatic telling you that you're going to hell.
 
2013-11-09 10:12:52 AM
i wonder which state will be the last?

Kentucky?
 
2013-11-09 10:13:00 AM

clowncar on fire: Halli: clowncar on fire: cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.

Again, what are the "other issues"?

Legal and reproductive come to mind.

In what respect? Legally it's a contract between two consenting adults. Reproduction is irrelevant to marriage; an infertile man and/or woman can enter into a marriage contract as it is.

Anything else you'd like cleared up?

So gay people don't enter a relationship other than as emotionless, financial equals, totally without the desire to have and raise kids?  Sounds like the recipe for the perfect marriage- at least from a legal stance.

So what specific legal issues are you talking about?

Legal issues.  Probably heard the obvious ones before but they don't go away.  Traditional marriages have pretty specifically designed roles played out by the male and female participants to which most laws reflect. Current divorce law seems to recognize the female as needing to be supported (regardless of her economic status) as well as recognizing her as the primary caretaker for the children that they raise.  Even being gender centric, it's still not as easy as handing the kids over to mom and making the father pay.

This is one of many probable issues that will need be ironed out that would only be complicated by same sex relations.  Probably much more complicated than staring down a religious fanatic telling you that you're going to hell.


Since they can't reproduce, how is custody a legal problem? Are we talking about pets here?
 
2013-11-09 10:14:15 AM

clowncar on fire: Legal issues.  Probably heard the obvious ones before but they don't go away.  Traditional marriages have pretty specifically designed roles played out by the male and female participants to which most laws reflect.


Such as?

clowncar on fire: Current divorce law seems to recognize the female as needing to be supported (regardless of her economic status) as well as recognizing her as the primary caretaker for the children that they raise


These issues are settled by a family court, in general.

clowncar on fire: This is one of many probable issues that will need be ironed out that would only be complicated by same sex relation


How is "going to family court" more complicated than the present process?
 
2013-11-09 10:14:36 AM

Heliovdrake: mab1823: clowncar on fire: cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: It's not about ickiness, although many people are uncomfortable with the PDA (public display of affection) thing in public regardless of the sexes involved.  What you do in private is fine with me.

Oh, I never said I was in opposition to gay relationships, simply that there will be a host of other issues other than religion.

Again, what are the "other issues"?

Legal and reproductive come to mind.

Reproductive?

Sure Clowncar believes either himself, and he is free to set the record straight on this, or that other people believe that a childless marriage should not be a legal marriage.  Because reasons. The big ones, you know the ones. Yeah those. Them. No need to list'em, cause everyone already knows'em.


I can't call you an idiot, I'm not allowed to.  Not being able to have their own kids for a straight couple can be a strain on a traditional relationship.  Again, more stress than your sister asking you to seek out Jesus.
 
2013-11-09 10:15:02 AM
Hawaii now racing Illinois to become 15th state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Talk about a race to...the bottom.
 
2013-11-09 10:16:00 AM

clowncar on fire: Not being able to have their own kids for a straight couple can be a strain on a traditional relationship.  Again, more stress than your sister asking you to seek out Jesus.


Does that mean that marriage for an infertile couple should be disallowed from a marriage contract? I mean, that's a pretty shaky legal justification if so.
 
2013-11-09 10:16:49 AM
ya the whole "host of other legal issues" probably really worked well after slavery too

"But who gets the slaves shoes? they're technically mine! And traditionally I paid for his meals, am I going to be reimbursed?"

Hmmmmm...you're right slave master, this is all more trouble than it's worth, let's just keep the slaves enslaved.
 
2013-11-09 10:18:43 AM
You can change marriage law but not biological law.  Gays can get married but can't have biological children with each other. That still takes a man and a woman. That's a law you can't repeal.
 
2013-11-09 10:18:57 AM

Mrs.Sharpier: ya the whole "host of other legal issues" probably really worked well after slavery too

"But who gets the slaves shoes? they're technically mine! And traditionally I paid for his meals, am I going to be reimbursed?"

Hmmmmm...you're right slave master, this is all more trouble than it's worth, let's just keep the slaves enslaved.


Butbutbut gays not having kids naturally puts a STRAIN on the relationship! Because reasons that are worse than religious people telling them they aren't people.
 
2013-11-09 10:19:42 AM

SamWaters: You can change marriage law but not biological law.  Gays can get married but can't have biological children with each other. That still takes a man and a woman. That's a law you can't repeal.


Thanks for the...uh...update?
 
2013-11-09 10:19:55 AM

Mrs.Sharpier: i wonder which state will be the last?

Kentucky?


Mississippi didn't outlaw slavery until 1995.
 
2013-11-09 10:20:14 AM

cameroncrazy1984: clowncar on fire: Legal issues.  Probably heard the obvious ones before but they don't go away.  Traditional marriages have pretty specifically designed roles played out by the male and female participants to which most laws reflect.

Such as?

clowncar on fire: Current divorce law seems to recognize the female as needing to be supported (regardless of her economic status) as well as recognizing her as the primary caretaker for the children that they raise

These issues are settled by a family court, in general.

clowncar on fire: This is one of many probable issues that will need be ironed out that would only be complicated by same sex relation

How is "going to family court" more complicated than the present process?


Well- bot of you want the house, the adopted kid, etc.  The law currently sorts this out pretty quick by gender.   Two men fighting over who has the right to junior?  I guess it would have to be financially fit gets the baby.  Doesn't necessarily work that way in a traditional relationship as the financially fit parents doesn't always get the baby so unequal application of the law will occur.

Gotta pick up my kid- be back in a bit.

Not trolling, by the way.  I'm very curious about how these issues are going to be approached. Again- I think religion makes a convenient scapegoat will be the least of your worries.
 
2013-11-09 10:20:43 AM

SamWaters: You can change marriage law but not biological law.  Gays can get married but can't have biological children with each other. That still takes a man and a woman. That's a law you can't repeal.


So...?
 
Displayed 50 of 222 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report