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.

(Mother Jones)   It's not all rainbows yet, but watch America start to fill with colors concerning marriage equality and the speed at which it's succeeding   (motherjones.com) divider line 51
    More: Interesting, opponents of same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships, Steve Beshear  
•       •       •

981 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Mar 2014 at 8:53 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-05 07:57:52 AM
Polygamy or bust!
 
2014-03-05 08:23:29 AM
Palin-Americans will not like this.
 
2014-03-05 08:56:18 AM
It's a good amount of progress, but given the most recent 'religious liberty' laws, let's not start sucking each others dicks quite yet.
 
2014-03-05 08:58:20 AM

voltOhm: Polygamy or bust!


People who want to marry more than one person arguably aren't a suspect class, and even if they were, it's likely that a plural marriage ban would stand up under strict scrutiny.
 
2014-03-05 08:59:18 AM

Karac: It's a good amount of progress, but given the most recent 'religious liberty' laws, let's not start sucking each others dicks quite yet.


Aw, man! I was really looking forward to sucking your dick. How much longer do you think we should wait?
 
2014-03-05 09:00:32 AM

Serious Black: People who want to marry more than one person arguably aren't a suspect class, and even if they were, it's likely that a plural marriage ban would stand up under strict scrutiny.


i can't think of a rational basis for it beyond 'well it would be annoying to have multi-party contracts'
 
2014-03-05 09:01:33 AM

clancifer: Palin-Americans will not like this.


I don't know.  It's interesting how their like has changed over the last 10 years.  Many I know personally went from literally claiming that this will be the downfall of our country and way of life (and so on) to "not caring" about gay people marrying...and they still maintain epic levels of lunacy in other matters while never acknowledging the fact that they were wrong in their consistent rants and condemnation of other Americans for supporting gay rights.
 
2014-03-05 09:01:54 AM
Man, it's like Pleasantville up in here.
 
2014-03-05 09:04:58 AM

sprawl15: Serious Black: People who want to marry more than one person arguably aren't a suspect class, and even if they were, it's likely that a plural marriage ban would stand up under strict scrutiny.

i can't think of a rational basis for it beyond 'well it would be annoying to have multi-party contracts'


Take a look at the British Columbia case from a few years ago where they ruled their polygamy ban was constitutional. The evidence marshaled in support of the ban strongly suggested that these marriages were historically bad for everyone involved except for the men.

/disclaimer: I was in an open marriage for awhile and support making it legal
 
2014-03-05 09:10:10 AM

Serious Black: The evidence marshaled in support of the ban strongly suggested that these marriages were historically bad for everyone involved except for the men.


except that has little to do with polygamy proper, and everything to do with long term polyamory which was found to be legal under that case. it's also framed in backwards thinking, under the twin assertions that marriage is between a man and woman (and the man is dominant) and that marriage is for child rearing

in reality, it's a combination of one step too far on the 'it is icky' meter for most people and the tendency for wackjob cult leaders to hide behind religious freedom excuses to run a harem - the former being none of anyone else's business and the latter tying back to the polyamory thing
 
2014-03-05 09:11:16 AM

Serious Black: voltOhm: Polygamy or bust!

People who want to marry more than one person arguably aren't a suspect class, and even if they were, it's likely that a plural marriage ban would stand up under strict scrutiny.


This.  Preventing same-sex marriage is discriminatory as an extension of sex(gender) discrimination wherein sex is a protected class just like preventing multi-racial marriages is also against race discrimination also as a protected class.
 
2014-03-05 09:11:36 AM

sprawl15: Serious Black: People who want to marry more than one person arguably aren't a suspect class, and even if they were, it's likely that a plural marriage ban would stand up under strict scrutiny.

i can't think of a rational basis for it beyond 'well it would be annoying to have multi-party contracts'


The history of basically female oppression in such unions, and the insanely complicated nature of trying to figure out how the thousands of rights and privileges woudl work if you have 3+ people instead of 2.

If they could hash all that out, and ensure the civil rights of all parties, then i'd be okay with it.  I'd never be in one myself, but I could see making it legal.
 
2014-03-05 09:13:37 AM

UberDave: clancifer: Palin-Americans will not like this.

I don't know.  It's interesting how their like has changed over the last 10 years.  Many I know personally went from literally claiming that this will be the downfall of our country and way of life (and so on) to "not caring" about gay people marrying...and they still maintain epic levels of lunacy in other matters while never acknowledging the fact that they were wrong in their consistent rants and condemnation of other Americans for supporting gay rights.


Because those are not their opinions. They are empty vessels who need their goals and ideals handed to them, and whatever they claim to support or not is what they have been spoonfed by AM radio and their whackadoodle echo chamber news sources. They either never matured past needing to be nursed, or they can't find purpose in life without having some holy war to always be fighting.
 
2014-03-05 09:15:34 AM
(FTA)  Under Wisconsin law, it is illegal for same-sex couples to travel out of state in order to marry; couples who do so, and continue living in Wisconsin, risk a $10,000 fine and nine months in prison.

WTF..
 
2014-03-05 09:15:53 AM

Antimatter: The history of basically female oppression in such unions


three gay dudes can't get married to eachother because of female oppression?
 
2014-03-05 09:16:37 AM

sprawl15: Serious Black: People who want to marry more than one person arguably aren't a suspect class, and even if they were, it's likely that a plural marriage ban would stand up under strict scrutiny.

i can't think of a rational basis for it beyond 'well it would be annoying to have multi-party contracts'


It is beyond annoying.  Multiple party contracts addressing parenting, health advocacy, property, divorce (and/or dissolution).  It is complex beyond imagining.

No two multi-party contract would be the same.   You could envision infinite variations of a plural marriage contracts.

I have no issue with Polygamy marriages so long as that don't expect the State to develop this overly complex contracts.  Let them incorporate their marriage or have it as a non-profit organization, whichever makes more sense.
 
2014-03-05 09:16:55 AM

UberDave: clancifer: Palin-Americans will not like this.

I don't know.  It's interesting how their like has changed over the last 10 years.  Many I know personally went from literally claiming that this will be the downfall of our country and way of life (and so on) to "not caring" about gay people marrying...and they still maintain epic levels of lunacy in other matters while never acknowledging the fact that they were wrong in their consistent rants and condemnation of other Americans for supporting gay rights.


Yeah, most republicans are too pussified to own up to their bigotry. Don't give them an inch.
 
2014-03-05 09:20:16 AM

fark_the_herald_angel_sings: (FTA)  Under Wisconsin law, it is illegal for same-sex couples to travel out of state in order to marry; couples who do so, and continue living in Wisconsin, risk a $10,000 fine and nine months in prison.

WTF..


Good grief.  It's going to be fun watching that one get argued in court...
 
2014-03-05 09:22:10 AM

sprawl15: Serious Black: People who want to marry more than one person arguably aren't a suspect class, and even if they were, it's likely that a plural marriage ban would stand up under strict scrutiny.

i can't think of a rational basis for it beyond 'well it would be annoying to have multi-party contracts'


It wouldn't even be all that annoying.

For people joining the marriage, you just add more names onto the marriage license.  No problem at all.

For problems during the marriage, say one person in a coma, and one spouse wants to pull the plug while the other doesn't.  In that case, you'd just use the existing court procedures when a similar situation has occurred.  In that case, what do you do today if a child is in a coma and one parent wants to end things and the other doesn't?

For ending a marriage through death, you just treat things the same as you do with a two person marriage. The surviving members of the marriage are treated the same way as a surviving single spouse now.

For ending a marriage through divorce, instead of writing up the case as Adam vs. Eve, you write it as Adam vs Eve & Steve.  50/50 split between the two parties, Adam gets half and Eve & Steve get the other half.

Any legal problems, other than how to put a third name on a marriage license, have already been solved by other cases where family law involves more than two people.  And the 'how to put a third name on a piece of paper' problem isn't that difficult to solve.
 
2014-03-05 09:24:17 AM

Antimatter: If they could hash all that out, and ensure the civil rights of all parties, then i'd be okay with it. I'd never be in one myself, but I could see making it legal.


While I can envision contentious distribution of the estate to be similar to what occurs between multiple heirs today, upon the death of the "husband", what would the precedent be for distribution to the multiple "wives"?  Is distribution of the remaining estate in other cases solely to the "husband", or based on length of time, or can any of the partners make their case in court?  How many partners can one person have on their health care?

Not a lawyer, but your point made me realize that polygamy is something that every lawyer specializing in marital law should be fighting for tooth-and-nail.
 
2014-03-05 09:27:22 AM

sprawl15: i can't think of a rational basis for it beyond 'well it would be annoying to have multi-party contracts'


Can you imagine a divorce proceeding where more than 2 people are directly involved?  It would be armageddon...  I wonder what it would look like if there were 5 or 6 spouses.
 
2014-03-05 09:27:52 AM

Antimatter: The history of basically female oppression in such unions, and the insanely complicated nature of trying to figure out how the thousands of rights and privileges woudl work if you have 3+ people instead of 2.


Marriage between two people has a history of basically female oppression.  For centuries women were traded, quite literally, from father to husband, for everything from livestock to promises not to invade.  Women being able to own property in their own right instead of being property of their husbands is a relatively new phenomenon.

If polygamy should be banned because it has historically been bad for women, then the only marriage which should be legal is gay marriage.

As for the thousands of rights and privileges, well, spit out one or two you think wouldn't work and lets see if no one can actually come up with a solution?
 
2014-03-05 09:27:53 AM
I went to a troll thread, and a legal discussion broke out!
 
2014-03-05 09:27:57 AM

sprawl15: Serious Black: The evidence marshaled in support of the ban strongly suggested that these marriages were historically bad for everyone involved except for the men.

except that has little to do with polygamy proper, and everything to do with long term polyamory which was found to be legal under that case. it's also framed in backwards thinking, under the twin assertions that marriage is between a man and woman (and the man is dominant) and that marriage is for child rearing

in reality, it's a combination of one step too far on the 'it is icky' meter for most people and the tendency for wackjob cult leaders to hide behind religious freedom excuses to run a harem - the former being none of anyone else's business and the latter tying back to the polyamory thing


I don't think you're thinking of the same case I am. Here's an article regarding it. I'll try and find the actual opinion if you're interested.
 
2014-03-05 09:31:48 AM

born_yesterday: While I can envision contentious distribution of the estate to be similar to what occurs between multiple heirs today, upon the death of the "husband", what would the precedent be for distribution to the multiple "wives"?


Husband A dies, leaving surviving wives B and C.  How to decide how to split the property between the wives?

I can see either of two options.
1) The property goes to both B and C.  They both get their names on the deeds to the house, car, and bank account.  The exact same thing which would happen if A had died leaving only B as a widow, except two names get put on the inheritance instead of one.

2) Whatever the legal route is in that jurisdiction in the case where man A dies and leave property to daughters B and C.
 
2014-03-05 09:34:34 AM

Mercutio74: sprawl15: i can't think of a rational basis for it beyond 'well it would be annoying to have multi-party contracts'

Can you imagine a divorce proceeding where more than 2 people are directly involved?  It would be armageddon...  I wonder what it would look like if there were 5 or 6 spouses.


You'd start with an assumption of everyone getting a 1/5 or 1/6 split of the assets and take it from there.

And you have to remember, it's not like polygamous divorces would be the bread and butter cases for divorce courts, they'd be the rare occurrence because polygamous marriages themselves wouldn't be as common as two person ones.  And as for armageddon-level divorce fights - we've got those already.
 
2014-03-05 09:36:50 AM

Karac: You'd start with an assumption of everyone getting a 1/5 or 1/6 split of the assets and take it from there.

And you have to remember, it's not like polygamous divorces would be the bread and butter cases for divorce courts, they'd be the rare occurrence because polygamous marriages themselves wouldn't be as common as two person ones. And as for armageddon-level divorce fights - we've got those already.


Fair enough...  though I pity anyone stupid enough to enter into a polygamous marriage knowing how little control they're going to have over their economic future.
 
2014-03-05 09:41:07 AM

Serious Black: I don't think you're thinking of the same case I am. Here's an article regarding it.


no, that's the case i'm thinking of. it has the big long bit about how monogamy is traditional, followed by a short list of pretty much bare claims about the dangers of polygamy. that it's only really engaged in by psychotic cult leaders tends to skew the statistics, though.

but you're missing the point - even if we assume all harms asserted within the case to be true, those harms do not come from the signing of the marriage license, but from the relationships/cohabitation. it is illegal for psycho cult leader to sign a marriage license with seven different women, but not to de facto live a polyamorous relationship with those same women.

go down to the overbreadth section and you'll see that a lot of legitimate arguments are handwaved away with 'but it is harmful to society/the state'
 
2014-03-05 09:42:56 AM

Mercutio74: Karac: You'd start with an assumption of everyone getting a 1/5 or 1/6 split of the assets and take it from there.

And you have to remember, it's not like polygamous divorces would be the bread and butter cases for divorce courts, they'd be the rare occurrence because polygamous marriages themselves wouldn't be as common as two person ones. And as for armageddon-level divorce fights - we've got those already.

Fair enough...  though I pity anyone stupid enough to enter into a polygamous marriage knowing how little control they're going to have over their economic future.


Again, it wouldn't be that different from marriage today.
2 people get married, if they get divorced, they each get half.
5 people get married, if they all get divorced, they all get 1/5.
5 people get married, if they split into one marriage of two and one of three, the first marriage gets 2/5ths and the second gets 3/5ths.

You could just as well say you pity anyone stupid enough to enter into a marriage with one other person knowing how little control they're going to have over their economic future if the other files for a no-fault divorce.
 
2014-03-05 09:50:30 AM

sprawl15: Serious Black: I don't think you're thinking of the same case I am. Here's an article regarding it.

no, that's the case i'm thinking of. it has the big long bit about how monogamy is traditional, followed by a short list of pretty much bare claims about the dangers of polygamy. that it's only really engaged in by psychotic cult leaders tends to skew the statistics, though.

but you're missing the point - even if we assume all harms asserted within the case to be true, those harms do not come from the signing of the marriage license, but from the relationships/cohabitation. it is illegal for psycho cult leader to sign a marriage license with seven different women, but not to de facto live a polyamorous relationship with those same women.

go down to the overbreadth section and you'll see that a lot of legitimate arguments are handwaved away with 'but it is harmful to society/the state'


I'm aware of that, and as I noted, I have zero problems with legalizing plural marriages. I simply can't fathom any court in America saying that these bans are unconstitutional. If they're judged under rational basis review, those harms would likely be enough justification to say "yeah, this is constitutional."
 
2014-03-05 10:02:51 AM

And the map doesn't include Ohio and Kentucky, where judges have said that gay marriages from other states have to be recognized even if the state doesn't itself allow them.

Tick - tick - tick - tick - tick - tick - tick - tick - tick - tick ....

a.imageshack.us
carryabigsticker.com

 
2014-03-05 10:06:06 AM

Serious Black: those harms would likely be enough justification to say "yeah, this is constitutional."


the 'harms' are ridiculous. one of them is that if polygamy is allowed, there will be a lot of unmarried men which is bad for society since unmarried men commit more and more dangerous crimes. that kind of specious reasoning is extremely dangerous; the aggregate correlative effect is the most irresponsible of statistics. the harms almost entirely assume a situation equivalent to a cult, where there's one disinterested male running a sex harem full of impressionable teenagers and their mothers. the only harms that don't are so general they could be used against things like interracial marriage under the premise that black people commit more crime therefore it's bad for society to spread their obvious criminal blood

the ones that don't are based on bizarre historical analysis of "polygamy was popular way in the past before democracy and now we have democracy and monogamy thus comma"

that said, the distinction between 'patent nonsense' and 'what a court will rule' is blurred at best
 
2014-03-05 10:19:56 AM

Karac: Again, it wouldn't be that different from marriage today.
2 people get married, if they get divorced, they each get half.
5 people get married, if they all get divorced, they all get 1/5.
5 people get married, if they split into one marriage of two and one of three, the first marriage gets 2/5ths and the second gets 3/5ths.

You could just as well say you pity anyone stupid enough to enter into a marriage with one other person knowing how little control they're going to have over their economic future if the other files for a no-fault divorce.


Well, yes, but if a two person marriage breaks down generally (not always) there's at least some responsibility for the termination of the marriage by both parties.  If you're in a six person marriage and someone just farks off, it's possible that you had nothing to do with the issues that led to that person leaving.  Yes, the financial loss is lessened but still it reduces your life stability.

It's not the end of the world, but then again, it's not the job of legislators to protect people from their own decisions in life.
 
2014-03-05 10:25:06 AM

sprawl15: Serious Black: People who want to marry more than one person arguably aren't a suspect class, and even if they were, it's likely that a plural marriage ban would stand up under strict scrutiny.

i can't think of a rational basis for it beyond 'well it would be annoying to have multi-party contracts'


A couple of simple questions can derail the Constitutional protection of Plural marriages, such as:

In a divorce, does the entire plural marriage dissolve, as it is in a two-party marriage, or, is only the person requesting to be released from the plural marriage bonds allowed out while all the other parties remain in the marriage?  One rule has to satisfy all Plural marriage party participants, and I doubt everyone in a plural marriage would be happy if they have to renew the plural marriage every time one person wants to leave.

What happens to rights to the children?  Do the non-biological parents of people in a plural marriage have any rights to the children if the children are born in the marriage, or do we require the non-biological parents to go thru the process of adoption as we would step-parents if they want to have rights to the non-biological children. Do the non-biological parents have to pay child support for the children after one party divorces? Remember, whatever answer you choose, it has to satisfy every plural marriage ever.

So, yeah, until there is a simple format to address the issues and other raised, that the majority of plural marriage parties agrees will be in effect to govern such questions in the event of a divorce, there seems to be a constitutional out on the issue.
 
2014-03-05 10:30:27 AM

RyogaM: Remember, whatever answer you choose, it has to satisfy every plural marriage ever.


Why? I'm pretty damned sure there's a large group of men and women who would have preferred divorce rules that say "you leave with what you came in with" instead of "an equitable split".  And I'm pretty damned sure that a lot of people really hated the rise of no-fault divorces.  But the fact that not everyone is happy with divorce law doesn't mean that people can't get married.
 
2014-03-05 10:35:11 AM
Nice map and all, but NJ has had civil unions since 2003, and I'm pretty sure Cali had them before us. Two fails leads me to believe there are more.
 
2014-03-05 10:36:10 AM

voltOhm: Polygamy or bust!


Well, if that is the next thing, then a lot of Mormons are going to be pissed when their sister wives decide to divorce and take their portion of the family's assets with them. Or in other words: a lot of Fundamentalist Mormons are going to decide that polygamy is waaaaaaaaay too dangerous and risky. The RenFaire crowd will line up, and there will be fun weddings planned, that will probably end in tears, but that's no different than what's happening already, save that there will be an equitable split of the property. A few millionaires will get taken to the cleaners by some grifters, and those headlines will lead the top most earners to invest in iron clad pre-nups, and serial marriages, same as it is now. So, really there are only upticks for attorney fees.

As for marriage equaility: it's time. Long past, but if we want to stand for our Constitution and deliver on that pesky "freedom of religion," "equality under the law" and "right to privacy" it might be nice to stop this nonsense telling homosexuals that they can't marry because they're "icky."
 
2014-03-05 10:39:46 AM

Mercutio74: Karac: Again, it wouldn't be that different from marriage today.
2 people get married, if they get divorced, they each get half.
5 people get married, if they all get divorced, they all get 1/5.
5 people get married, if they split into one marriage of two and one of three, the first marriage gets 2/5ths and the second gets 3/5ths.

You could just as well say you pity anyone stupid enough to enter into a marriage with one other person knowing how little control they're going to have over their economic future if the other files for a no-fault divorce.

Well, yes, but if a two person marriage breaks down generally (not always) there's at least some responsibility for the termination of the marriage by both parties.  If you're in a six person marriage and someone just farks off, it's possible that you had nothing to do with the issues that led to that person leaving.  Yes, the financial loss is lessened but still it reduces your life stability.

It's not the end of the world, but then again, it's not the job of legislators to protect people from their own decisions in life.


Folks decide to go into a multi-party contract, and something goes south within the partnership, it's entirely possible that they didn't screw the arrangement up as well. Caveat emptor. Well, and There Ain't No Justice...
 
2014-03-05 10:45:01 AM
RyogaM:

that's a lot of words to say 'i concur'
 
2014-03-05 10:51:12 AM
Meanwhile, Michigan is letting this lying piece of scum testify as an expert witness in a gay adoption trial.
 
2014-03-05 10:53:20 AM
I see at least one error in that map-California has had domestic partnerships since 1999.
 
2014-03-05 11:17:35 AM

DeaH: Meanwhile, Michigan is letting this lying piece of scum testify as an expert witness in a gay adoption trial.


If the opposing lawyer is able to challenge the credibility of his work any reasonable jury would see through the foolishness of his conclusions.  In any case, as the right to marriage is increasingly accepted by the laws of the land, adoption won't be far behind.  I can't image a situation where marriage would be constitutional but adopting a child wouldn't.

I have to question why conservatives don't want kids raised by homosexuals.  It's not like they're going to automagically turn the kids gay.
 
2014-03-05 11:22:39 AM

Mercutio74: DeaH: Meanwhile, Michigan is letting this lying piece of scum testify as an expert witness in a gay adoption trial.

If the opposing lawyer is able to challenge the credibility of his work any reasonable jury would see through the foolishness of his conclusions.  In any case, as the right to marriage is increasingly accepted by the laws of the land, adoption won't be far behind.  I can't image a situation where marriage would be constitutional but adopting a child wouldn't.

I have to question why conservatives don't want kids raised by homosexuals.  It's not like they're going to automagically turn the kids gay.


Sadly, a number of people (wrongly) believe teh ghey is picked up by social contagion.
 
2014-03-05 11:26:19 AM

Serious Black: Sadly, a number of people (wrongly) believe teh ghey is picked up by social contagion.


Which makes me wonder, is there something about conservatism that attracts a large demographic of men with bisexual tendencies who are afraid of their sexual attraction to other men?  I can only imagine that when they're all feverishly decrying the "lifestyle choice" of being gay, it comes from a place where they feel that it's a life that they could have chosen for themselves and been happy with but have decided against it because of god and social pressure.  Maybe they think that all men are like them... bi-curious, and it's the weak ones that have succumbed?
 
2014-03-05 11:29:18 AM

Mercutio74: I have to question why conservatives don't want kids raised by homosexuals. It's not like they're going to automagically turn the kids gay.


They oppose it for a couple of different reasons.

First, they do think gay parents will only raise kids to be gay.  Head over to American Thinker and you can be sure to find at least one article about how gays only want to raise kids to be their little homosexual sex-slaves.

Secondly, they believe that the optimal environment in which to raise children is a nuclear family consisting of one mother and one father.  They never say so explicitly, but that theory also assumes that children will be better raised in group foster homes than if they were adopted by a gay couple, and that children will be better raised by a single parent than by two gay parents.

Third, they'll dream up some pseudo-scientific hogwash based on the fact that a gay couple cannot procreate without outside help.  Because of this, allowing gays to marry means that they will acquire offspring by arcane technomancy involving sperm donors or enslaving poor third-world women as axolotl tanks, which will naturally lead to a free-market enterprise consisting of the sale and purchase of children.  They just happen to ignore that such a trade has not risen up to meet the needs of infertile or unmarried couples.

So basically, it boils down to three reasons: gays are all pedophiles, gays would be worse at raising children than the island from Lord of the Flies, and being scared by advances in science.
 
2014-03-05 11:35:39 AM

Mercutio74: Serious Black: Sadly, a number of people (wrongly) believe teh ghey is picked up by social contagion.

Which makes me wonder, is there something about conservatism that attracts a large demographic of men with bisexual tendencies who are afraid of their sexual attraction to other men?  I can only imagine that when they're all feverishly decrying the "lifestyle choice" of being gay, it comes from a place where they feel that it's a life that they could have chosen for themselves and been happy with but have decided against it because of god and social pressure.  Maybe they think that all men are like them... bi-curious, and it's the weak ones that have succumbed?


That could be part of it. I think another part of the reason some men want to hide in the closet is because they know what men are like when it comes to chasing after women for sexual gratification and they are completely terrified of another man chasing after them in a similar manner.
 
2014-03-05 11:49:23 AM

Serious Black: That could be part of it. I think another part of the reason some men want to hide in the closet is because they know what men are like when it comes to chasing after women for sexual gratification and they are completely terrified of another man chasing after them in a similar manner.


I have a theory that gay men think about straight men like straight think about lesbians.

/and not TV lesbians, real life lesbians that aren't trying to fark another woman expressly to turn on male watchers
 
2014-03-05 11:51:30 AM

Serious Black: That could be part of it. I think another part of the reason some men want to hide in the closet is because they know what men are like when it comes to chasing after women for sexual gratification and they are completely terrified of another man chasing after them in a similar manner.


if you're going that route, it's funnier to instead assume that they're against gay people because they assume gay people will treat conservative males the way conservative males treat women
 
2014-03-05 11:52:05 AM

Mercutio74: DeaH: Meanwhile, Michigan is letting this lying piece of scum testify as an expert witness in a gay adoption trial.

If the opposing lawyer is able to challenge the credibility of his work any reasonable jury would see through the foolishness of his conclusions.  In any case, as the right to marriage is increasingly accepted by the laws of the land, adoption won't be far behind.  I can't image a situation where marriage would be constitutional but adopting a child wouldn't.

I have to question why conservatives don't want kids raised by homosexuals.  It's not like they're going to automagically turn the kids gay.


I would just make the distinction is a child's right issue not a gay rights issue IMHO.  A child has a right to be adopted by loving parent(s) regardless of their sexual orientation.  If you are preventing a child's right to adoption and/or the best possible parents, you are infringing on the child's rights primarily and that should be society's dominant consideration.
 
2014-03-05 12:01:43 PM

sprawl15: Serious Black: That could be part of it. I think another part of the reason some men want to hide in the closet is because they know what men are like when it comes to chasing after women for sexual gratification and they are completely terrified of another man chasing after them in a similar manner.

if you're going that route, it's funnier to instead assume that they're against gay people because they assume gay people will treat conservative males the way conservative males treat women


That is definitely funnier, but possibly less accurate.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report