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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Today, on "Republicans Reach Out to Gays," Texas GOP blocks Log Cabin Republicans from hosting booth at state convention   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 220
    More: Asinine, Log Cabin Republicans, texas gop, Texas, Republicans, political convention, reseller hosting, Texas Democratic Party, party platform  
•       •       •

1680 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 May 2014 at 7:48 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-29 08:59:45 PM  

serpent_sky: anfrind: Likewise, I don't "get" women who refuse to leave abusive boyfriends or husbands, but they do exist, and in disturbingly large numbers.

One, the abusive boyfriend/husband can be incredibly, convincingly contrite.
Two, the abuse usually ends for a period after an incident and the woman is treated like a princess.
Three, the heart is sometimes strong than, if not smarter than, the mind.

That's why I stayed married almost 3 years.


I'm not entirely convinced on the first two.  When I was a kid, my dad worked as a security guard at a local hospital, and he told me about how the following story played out far too many times:

1. Woman shows up in ER after being beaten by the man in her life (boyfriend or husband).
2. For her safety, the woman is isolated from the man so that she can be treated for her injuries.
3. During treatment, while all of the wounds are still fresh in her mind and body, a security officer offers to summon the police and any other resources a domestic abuse survivor might need.
4. The woman declines EVERY DAMN TIME.

Seriously, he worked there for about ten years, and no battered girlfriend or wife ever accepted anything other than being patched up and sent home to the abuser.


I can believe that the heart overrides the brain in such cases, unfortunately.
 
2014-05-29 09:04:16 PM  

SkinnyHead: I understand. That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim. They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage. They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state. Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically. That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.


Actually, most Democrats say churches should have the right to marry who they want and maintain their own rules (as it is, churches can refuse to marry a man and woman. I was married in a Catholic church (ex's choice) and I had to go through interviews with the priest. He could have (and probably should have) said no.

We just think the state should recognize legal marriages.  Separation of church and state.  Nobody wants to force the churches to do anything they want, and in turn, we don't want the churches to have a hand in the rule of law for those of us who don't share their faith/beliefs.

Is that really so hard to understand?
 
2014-05-29 09:08:51 PM  
Munisteri pointed out that pro-gambling and pro-marijuana legalization groups have also been denied booths in the past under that policy.

The Party of FREEDOM!
 
2014-05-29 09:09:30 PM  
You guys know that Skinnyhead is a longtime Fark troll, right? None of the stupid shiat that he says is meant to be taken seriously. Most Farkers put him on ignore a long time ago.
 
2014-05-29 09:11:47 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: You guys know that Skinnyhead is a longtime Fark troll, right? None of the stupid shiat that he says is meant to be taken seriously. Most Farkers put him on ignore a long time ago.


Yes, but I'm bored and have been enjoying farking with him today... probably because I haven't been in threads with him in a while. (I don't put anyone on ignore, even the trolls are entertaining sometimes. I can't drive and a girl in a cast doesn't go out walking by herself. I spend a lot of time alone.)
 
2014-05-29 09:12:01 PM  

ScaryBottles: Sorry but I have zero sympathy for the Uncle Tom's log cabin republicans.


Traitors to the Democratic Party, eh?
That's just part of the Democrats' game plan:

1.). Portray the opposition as composed entirely, without exception, of racists and bigots.
2.) Label anyone who belongs to a group that the Democratic Party "owns" who votes for the opposition as an Uncle Tom.
2.) Attach yourself to every social spending program designed to appeal to the special interest groups that you need to keep in the party fold.

3.) Do irreparable damage to our economy, society, and infrastructure, while blaming the rich for everything and borrowing money out the wazoo.

4.) Profit...Until the system blows up, at which point you do everything you can to make voters forget you created the system.


Nobody important gives a shiat who you think is an Uncle Tom. That would be people who believe that everyone has a right to use their brains and choose the best ideas , instead of toeing your party's line.
 
2014-05-29 09:13:15 PM  

SkinnyHead: Karac: The Democratic party does not care about your choice of religious. Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist - they don't care. What they do get worked up about is when you try to take your religious views and write them into secular law.

We kind of have a thing about that whole 'separation of church and state' bit in the First Amendment.

I understand.  That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim.  They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage.  They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state.  Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.  That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.



This doesn't make much sense given that religious people already do have a voice in "deciding such things as the definition of marriage". What you're arguing would only make sense if there was only one singular definition of marriage applicable to all people. This is of course not the case.

What you're missing is that it's not about having "a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage", but enforcing that particular view on others in not allowing gay marriage.

In addition, if you're going to invoke democratic ideals in terms of self-determination, those exact same ideals undermine your position. Such ideals do not somehow stop at the state level.
 
2014-05-29 09:14:23 PM  

Cyberluddite: serpent_sky: I'm cool with that except they pick and choose. The Bible is not full of anti-gay rhetoric, it barely even mentions homosexuality and the line they always use is open to interpretation.  There are tons and tons of rules in the Bible -- express rules -- and they ignore those.  Jesus wasn't hateful.  Jesus was inclusive. Jesus cared about the poor.

Not to mention--and I'm no biblical scholar here, in fact, I'll admit that I'm about the furthest thing from it--that I thought that deal was that Jesus supposedly relieved his followers of following the Lord's laws/curses spelled out in Leviticus (which of course is what they claim as their source for the supposed godly ban on homosexuality) by taking on the burden of those laws himself.  So for some reason Christians seem to feel that Jebus gave them the thumbs-up to eat pork and shellfish, and shave their beards if they want, but yet that somehow the one passage of Leviticus about how a man must not "lie with a man as he lieth with a woman" is exempted from Jesus's relief of those laws and is still in force.

Any Christians here want to enlighten us about how that supposedly works?


Okay, I'll give it a try.  Yes, Jesus's sacrificial death made the law obsolete; the book of Hebrews contrasts this in many chapters.  But there are a couple of passages in the New Testament that also mention homosexuality and that are used by right wingers:

Romans 1:24-27
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.  27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9
9Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
 
2014-05-29 09:15:33 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: You forgot Rush.


upload.wikimedia.org

Still got to wonger what kind of idiot would have to be gay and a Republican, especially in Texas.  This is a state where the Republican party openly advocates for throwing all homosexuals in jail.

Are they just sados / nancy bottoms /  subs who want to be pounded hard in the ass by someone who hates them?
 
2014-05-29 09:17:10 PM  

SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?

You mean bigots?  Probably not, just as I doubt they have booths for white supremacists.

But isn't that ironic?  Democrats are proud to be the "party of inclusion, the party of all people," unless you just happen to be the wrong religion.  Then they call you dirty names and tell you to get lost.


Ah, the old 'you're intolerant of my intolerance, therefore YOU'RE the real bigot' argument.
 
2014-05-29 09:21:42 PM  

Animatronik: Nobody important gives a shiat who you think is an Uncle Tom. That would be people who believe that everyone has a right to use their brains and choose the best ideas , instead of toeing your party's line.


Okay, obviously you feel very passionately about how Democratic policies are dumb and Republicans are smart. That's interesting.

So let's return to the actual topic of the thread; Why exactly do you think gay Republicans are being excluded from the state convention?
 
2014-05-29 09:25:59 PM  

SkinnyHead: Karac: The Democratic party does not care about your choice of religious. Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist - they don't care. What they do get worked up about is when you try to take your religious views and write them into secular law.

We kind of have a thing about that whole 'separation of church and state' bit in the First Amendment.

I understand.  That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim.  They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage.  They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state.  Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.  That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.


I don't think anyone is trying to prevent you from having a voice or an opinion. The very big problem you have is that you cannot prove shiat about your religion other than it was wriiten by" insert name here" which you have no signature or notory. It seems the that right wing xtians have a very sub-intellectual tie to things like Sharia law that would very much love to dictate what, whom, how carnal sex should be controlled/administered. Is this what you want? Seriously? You are very worried about somethng. What is it? Ah, yes, you are very worried. Alt and all...
 
2014-05-29 09:26:09 PM  

youl100: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x622]

/Hot.


I'm trying to decide on whether that sentence remains functionally as intended when considering the writer should have written "affect" in both cases.

Since "effect", when used as a verb, means "to bring about", I guess the first part could be true, since many people choose to get a dog after they've officially moved in together and made a commitment to one another. It's kind of something you don't do when you're only casually banging on the weekends. "Gay marriage effects dogs in the home" could be technically true. Then again, many gay people have made commitments to one another (and gotten dogs) in the past before gay marriage, so does gay marriage itself bring about more dog adoption?

The second part is even more confusing: "[Gay marriage] would effect you." Well, I'm hesitant to say that gay marriage doesn't bring about kids, because many gay dads adopt, and many lesbian couples adopt or have AI in order to share a child with the person they love. Maybe if it said "people like you" instead of "you", it might be less confusing, as the reader of the statement has logically already been brought about.

Stupid f*cking dog should learn to spell. It muddles his message.
 
2014-05-29 09:28:42 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: tinfoil-hat maggie: You forgot Rush.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 301x300]

Still got to wonger what kind of idiot would have to be gay and a Republican, especially in Texas.  This is a state where the Republican party openly advocates for throwing all homosexuals in jail.

Are they just sados / nancy bottoms /  subs who want to be pounded hard in the ass by someone who hates them?


Sorta but only the real religious ones seem to want that and beside they're on the down low and want to force everyone else be on the down load. I mean what happens when the "upstanding family values" candidates boyfriend want's him to leave his wife and 3 kids and get married? I mean can you imagine.

/And there ya go.
 
2014-05-29 09:31:23 PM  

Animatronik: Nobody important gives a shiat who you think is an Uncle Tom. That would be people who believe that everyone has a right to use their brains and choose the best ideas , instead of toeing your party's line.


The underlying sentiment is fine. However, remember that TFA is about an instance of 'toeing your party's line' being enforced in the first place.

In addition, such an action is in line with the Texas GOP's official platform, as stated in TFA. Whether you personally agree with it or not, placing yourself under that banner in an official manner does further that platform.  The unflattering Uncle Tom comparison may be accurate, regardless of whether you think "nobody important gives a shiat".
 
2014-05-29 09:32:12 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Are you saying the Democrats are gonna have a hetero booth at their convention?. I'm guessing they won't.  Breeders are eeeevil.


If you find out that such a booth was requested and denied, you might have a point. Until then, you just sound stupid.
 
2014-05-29 09:35:16 PM  

propasaurus: SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?

You mean bigots?  Probably not, just as I doubt they have booths for white supremacists.

But isn't that ironic?  Democrats are proud to be the "party of inclusion, the party of all people," unless you just happen to be the wrong religion.  Then they call you dirty names and tell you to get lost.

Ah, the old 'you're intolerant of my intolerance, therefore YOU'RE the real bigot' argument.


With a sprinkling of pretending to not know the difference between personal/religious beliefs and wanting those beliefs to be codified into law thereby institutionalizing bigotry.
 
2014-05-29 09:36:06 PM  

serpent_sky: Actually, most Democrats say churches should have the right to marry who they want and maintain their own rules (as it is, churches can refuse to marry a man and woman. I was married in a Catholic church (ex's choice) and I had to go through interviews with the priest. He could have (and probably should have) said no.

We just think the state should recognize legal marriages. Separation of church and state. Nobody wants to force the churches to do anything they want, and in turn, we don't want the churches to have a hand in the rule of law for those of us who don't share their faith/beliefs.

Is that really so hard to understand?


I understand your position.  The question is, who gets to decide what is a "legal marriage" that the state is supposed to recognize.  For ages, a legal marriage is one man and one woman.  Marriage unites a man and a woman as one flesh.   As a voter, if I am asked to vote on whether the state should change that time-honored traditional meaning of marriage, I vote no.  I'm not a church.  My vote does not violate the separation of church and state.  But he Democrat party thinks that my vote should not count and that I should get no say in the matter.  That's not very democratic.
 
2014-05-29 09:36:07 PM  
"This isn't about disagreements we may have on civil marriage; this isn't about the party platform - this is about an anti-gay wing of the party that hates gay people so much they can't even stand to see us acknowledged as a necessary part of a winning Republican coalition,"

Anti-gay "wing"?  Dude...it's a core value of the party.  It's not a wing...it's the whole dang bird.
 
2014-05-29 09:37:27 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Animatronik: Nobody important gives a shiat who you think is an Uncle Tom. That would be people who believe that everyone has a right to use their brains and choose the best ideas , instead of toeing your party's line.

The underlying sentiment is fine. However, remember that TFA is about an instance of 'toeing your party's line' being enforced in the first place.

In addition, such an action is in line with the Texas GOP's official platform, as stated in TFA. Whether you personally agree with it or not, placing yourself under that banner in an official manner does further that platform.  The unflattering Uncle Tom comparison may be accurate, regardless of whether you think "nobody important gives a shiat".


It cuts both ways . If I'm gay but my ideas don't align with Democrats, yet there are many Republicans who don't want to hear about a gay coalition, does that mean that I have to be. a Democrat?

The problem here is that instead of basing your politics on virulent caricatures, you should be voting according to your ideas. I live in a state that is dominated ny Democrats and I reject most of their ideas, but that didn't stop me from voting to legalize gay marriage. At the same time I understand the drive to protect the male-female marriage concept, I just decided that it wasn't threatened by alternative marriages, which are actually never going to be recognized as marriages by a segment of the population, and that's ok.
 
2014-05-29 09:37:50 PM  
They are more accustomed to reaching around for them.
 
2014-05-29 09:38:51 PM  

SkinnyHead: The question is, who gets to decide what is a "legal marriage" that the state is supposed to recognize.


That would roughly be the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch.

Our government isn't religious in nature. The legal institution of marriage has no basis in religion.
 
2014-05-29 09:40:33 PM  
They probably didn't want the competition on Craigslist.
 
2014-05-29 09:41:11 PM  

SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?


There is a reason your posts are met with pictures of a retarded person.
 
2014-05-29 09:42:34 PM  

SkinnyHead: Karac: The Democratic party does not care about your choice of religious. Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist - they don't care. What they do get worked up about is when you try to take your religious views and write them into secular law.

We kind of have a thing about that whole 'separation of church and state' bit in the First Amendment.

I understand.  That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim.  They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage.  They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state.  Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.  That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.


You can't democratically enact a law that violates the constitution. Equal protection under the law is a constitutional right. Denying marriage to certain people does not offer them equal protection under the law. It is institutionalized bigotry. Of course you know this, but are being deliberately obtuse. 50-some years ago, religious people believed that interracial marriage was against their religion and today is no different. People like you were wrong then and you are wrong now. Your weak attempts to justify legal bigotry are completely nonsensical and pretending that it's the people who oppose your desire to institutionalize bigotry who are being 'exclusionary' is childishly pathetic.
 
2014-05-29 09:42:48 PM  
"We deserve to occupy a booth just like anyone else, and it's time that the Texas GOP's hypocritical policies and procedures are replaced by new ones that match the general opinion of Texan Republican voters," he said.


Sorry mister gay conservative, as far as I can tell their awful policies do match the general opinion of the texas republican voters. Maybe support the party that doesn't hate you?
 
2014-05-29 09:45:44 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: You guys know that Skinnyhead is a longtime Fark troll, right? None of the stupid shiat that he says is meant to be taken seriously. Most Farkers put him on ignore a long time ago.


Just click your heels and say "there are no trolls on Fark, just people with differing opinions." Otherwise, The Powers That Be will remove all trace of you calling out their shared alt.
 
2014-05-29 09:47:35 PM  

UNC_Samurai: shower_in_my_socks: You guys know that Skinnyhead is a longtime Fark troll, right? None of the stupid shiat that he says is meant to be taken seriously. Most Farkers put him on ignore a long time ago.

Just click your heels and say "there are no trolls on Fark, just people with differing opinions." Otherwise, The Powers That Be will remove all trace of you calling out their shared alt.


Hehehehehehe ; )
 
2014-05-29 09:48:03 PM  

Animatronik: Damnhippyfreak: Animatronik: Nobody important gives a shiat who you think is an Uncle Tom. That would be people who believe that everyone has a right to use their brains and choose the best ideas , instead of toeing your party's line.

The underlying sentiment is fine. However, remember that TFA is about an instance of 'toeing your party's line' being enforced in the first place.

In addition, such an action is in line with the Texas GOP's official platform, as stated in TFA. Whether you personally agree with it or not, placing yourself under that banner in an official manner does further that platform.  The unflattering Uncle Tom comparison may be accurate, regardless of whether you think "nobody important gives a shiat".


It cuts both ways . If I'm gay but my ideas don't align with Democrats, yet there are many Republicans who don't want to hear about a gay coalition, does that mean that I have to be. a Democrat?


Goodness no. You don't have to be. However, you will have to accept furthering an official position that works against yourself (in this case) on a basic level. You can choose to affiliate yourself with people that actively work against you. You can choose to be something akin to an Uncle Tom, if we go that far.


Animatronik: The problem here is that instead of basing your politics on virulent caricatures, you should be voting according to your ideas. I live in a state that is dominated ny Democrats and I reject most of their ideas, but that didn't stop me from voting to legalize gay marriage. At the same time I understand the drive to protect the male-female marriage concept, I just decided that it wasn't threatened by alternative marriages, which are actually never going to be recognized as marriages by a segment of the population, and that's ok.


Again, I think the underlying sentiment is fine, and I don't think you'll get much argument from people about it.  What you may be missing is that the ideas in question may be more basic to people's existence than differing on slightly more abstract questions of economic policy or even social policies that affect other people.

The unflattering Uncle Tom comparison comes from the idea that the opposition to gay marriage is (as well as the official party platform quoted in TFA) is based on opposition to homosexuality and homosexuals, something much more basic and existential. Voting for such a party (and thereby furthering such a position) as a homosexual works against your own self-interest on a fairly basic, existential level. This is where the comparison comes from.
 
2014-05-29 09:51:22 PM  

Animatronik: Damnhippyfreak: Animatronik: Nobody important gives a shiat who you think is an Uncle Tom. That would be people who believe that everyone has a right to use their brains and choose the best ideas , instead of toeing your party's line.

The underlying sentiment is fine. However, remember that TFA is about an instance of 'toeing your party's line' being enforced in the first place.

In addition, such an action is in line with the Texas GOP's official platform, as stated in TFA. Whether you personally agree with it or not, placing yourself under that banner in an official manner does further that platform.  The unflattering Uncle Tom comparison may be accurate, regardless of whether you think "nobody important gives a shiat".

It cuts both ways . If I'm gay but my ideas don't align with Democrats, yet there are many Republicans who don't want to hear about a gay coalition, does that mean that I have to be. a Democrat?

The problem here is that instead of basing your politics on virulent caricatures, you should be voting according to your ideas. I live in a state that is dominated ny Democrats and I reject most of their ideas, but that didn't stop me from voting to legalize gay marriage. At the same time I understand the drive to protect the male-female marriage concept, I just decided that it wasn't threatened by alternative marriages, which are actually never going to be recognized as marriages by a segment of the population, and that's ok.


You don't have to be a democrat. There are third parties that will accept you. It doesn't mean I'd want to associate with a party that views me at best a second-class citizen or at worst an abomination.
 
2014-05-29 09:52:10 PM  

Animatronik: It cuts both ways . If I'm gay but my ideas don't align with Democrats, yet there are many Republicans who don't want to hear about a gay coalition, does that mean that I have to be. a Democrat?


Forgot to add that this does not mean you have to be a Democrat, but does pose very serious challenges for continuing to be a Republican. Don't be caught in a false dilemma.

As for the ability to change the platform, which Log Cabin Republicans were undoubtedly trying to do, TFA gives an idea of how well that's being received.
 
2014-05-29 09:56:56 PM  

serpent_sky: it barely even mentions homosexuality and the line they always use is open to interpretation.


My two most likely interpretations based on what was actually going on back then and the "as with woman" that only appears in that one ban and not the others like bestiality and incest.

1) don't be a bottom (even in Ancient Greece, it was taboo to be a bottom esp. anal and most sex was between the thighs)
2) it's still adultery, even with a man (lots of gay sex back then was done by married men)

And of course, the topper is that the purpose of all of those laws was tribal preservation, to make the pagans seem so weird and icky that one wouldn't leave the Jewish faith.  Which the major tradition of Christianity (starting with Paul) did away with to create an evangelical religion, one open to everyone on Earth and not just those of the right blood.
 
2014-05-29 10:01:53 PM  
Outreach bad? Log Cabin types should might get a better reception if they appear to the universally enjoyed reach around.  Pleasure you don't see coming.
 
2014-05-29 10:04:29 PM  

SkinnyHead: serpent_sky: Actually, most Democrats say churches should have the right to marry who they want and maintain their own rules (as it is, churches can refuse to marry a man and woman. I was married in a Catholic church (ex's choice) and I had to go through interviews with the priest. He could have (and probably should have) said no.

We just think the state should recognize legal marriages. Separation of church and state. Nobody wants to force the churches to do anything they want, and in turn, we don't want the churches to have a hand in the rule of law for those of us who don't share their faith/beliefs.

Is that really so hard to understand?

I understand your position.  The question is, who gets to decide what is a "legal marriage" that the state is supposed to recognize.  For ages, a legal marriage is one man and one woman.  Marriage unites a man and a woman as one flesh.   As a voter, if I am asked to vote on whether the state should change that time-honored traditional meaning of marriage, I vote no.  I'm not a church.  My vote does not violate the separation of church and state.  But he Democrat party thinks that my vote should not count and that I should get no say in the matter.  That's not very democratic.


For ages, it was legal and traditional to keep other human beings as personal property. If you were alive in 1860 and were asked to vote on whether slavery should be outlawed, would you have voted to preserve the traditional meaning of property rights?

/ invoke slavery not to compare gay marriage to chattel but to say that tradition itself is not an acceptable argument
 
2014-05-29 10:25:58 PM  

Serious Black: SkinnyHead: serpent_sky: Actually, most Democrats say churches should have the right to marry who they want and maintain their own rules (as it is, churches can refuse to marry a man and woman. I was married in a Catholic church (ex's choice) and I had to go through interviews with the priest. He could have (and probably should have) said no.

We just think the state should recognize legal marriages. Separation of church and state. Nobody wants to force the churches to do anything they want, and in turn, we don't want the churches to have a hand in the rule of law for those of us who don't share their faith/beliefs.

Is that really so hard to understand?

I understand your position.  The question is, who gets to decide what is a "legal marriage" that the state is supposed to recognize.  For ages, a legal marriage is one man and one woman.  Marriage unites a man and a woman as one flesh.   As a voter, if I am asked to vote on whether the state should change that time-honored traditional meaning of marriage, I vote no.  I'm not a church.  My vote does not violate the separation of church and state.  But he Democrat party thinks that my vote should not count and that I should get no say in the matter.  That's not very democratic.

For ages, it was legal and traditional to keep other human beings as personal property. If you were alive in 1860 and were asked to vote on whether slavery should be outlawed, would you have voted to preserve the traditional meaning of property rights?

/ invoke slavery not to compare gay marriage to chattel but to say that tradition itself is not an acceptable argument


Great, now you'll get him troll-advocating slavery. Good job!
 
2014-05-29 10:27:55 PM  

theknuckler_33: You can't democratically enact a law that violates the constitution. Equal protection under the law is a constitutional right. Denying marriage to certain people does not offer them equal protection under the law. It is institutionalized bigotry. Of course you know this, but are being deliberately obtuse. 50-some years ago, religious people believed that interracial marriage was against their religion and today is no different. People like you were wrong then and you are wrong now. Your weak attempts to justify legal bigotry are completely nonsensical and pretending that it's the people who oppose your desire to institutionalize bigotry who are being 'exclusionary' is childishly pathetic.


Whether there is a constitutional right to a gay marriage has yet to be decided by US Supreme Court.  I don't think that equal protection means that we got to change the definition of things. I've always said that I support civil unions and the like, if same sex couples want to have similar legal protections.  That should take care of equal protection claims.  I just don't know why same sex couples think they got to imitate a traditional marriage by pretending that they're husband and wife.
 
2014-05-29 10:41:11 PM  

SkinnyHead: I just don't know why same sex couples think they got to imitate a traditional marriage by pretending that they're husband and wife.


If you think a homosexual couple want to be husband and wife, then your problem with gay marriage is not bigotry or trolling, but a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the word "homosexual".
 
2014-05-29 10:43:27 PM  
Sad to see the victims of an abusive relationship unable to leave their abuser.
 
2014-05-29 10:44:16 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Um, subby? Maybe you could try studying American history before you make stupid comments? Look at black people in America. For centuries, white people enslaved black people, then segregated them, then denied them voting rights, and what happened as a result? Black people rose up and achieved greatness and equality. It's a similar story with women...for a long time, they were basically the property of men. They suffered abuse, they couldn't vote. But their adversities gave them strength, and now they have jobs and earn almost as much as men.

Would black people and women have been able to achieve these goals, win despite all the various adversities in their path, if things had simply been handed to them from the beginning? If they'd been like spoiled rich children born with silver spoons in their mouths?

That right there is the basic divide between Right and Left in America. The Right says, "I believe in your ability to overcome." The Left says, "I don't believe you can succeed without my handouts and concern." Which is truly the more enlightened view? I ask you that.


Christ that is some concentrated stupid right there.
 
2014-05-29 10:45:26 PM  

SkinnyHead: I don't think that equal protection means that we got to change the definition of things


Yes, actually it does, considering that marriage is fully a legal concept and those can be changed by the legislature, the executive and the judicial branches of government.

Just because you think it's icky doesn't change how government works.
 
2014-05-29 10:46:51 PM  
 
2014-05-29 10:50:25 PM  
I thought that said, Today, on "Republican Reach Around to Gays,"
and I was guardedly optimistic.
 
2014-05-29 10:54:28 PM  
Link

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said Wednesday that he wants more information before ruling on an attempt by the National Organization for Marriage to halt same-sex marriages in Oregon.
 
2014-05-29 10:55:25 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Link

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said Wednesday that he wants more information before ruling on an attempt by the National Organization for Marriage to halt same-sex marriages in Oregon.


What more information could he possibly need?
 
2014-05-29 10:59:04 PM  

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: You can't democratically enact a law that violates the constitution. Equal protection under the law is a constitutional right. Denying marriage to certain people does not offer them equal protection under the law. It is institutionalized bigotry. Of course you know this, but are being deliberately obtuse. 50-some years ago, religious people believed that interracial marriage was against their religion and today is no different. People like you were wrong then and you are wrong now. Your weak attempts to justify legal bigotry are completely nonsensical and pretending that it's the people who oppose your desire to institutionalize bigotry who are being 'exclusionary' is childishly pathetic.

Whether there is a constitutional right to a gay marriage has yet to be decided by US Supreme Court.  I don't think that equal protection means that we got to change the definition of things. I've always said that I support civil unions and the like, if same sex couples want to have similar legal protections.  That should take care of equal protection claims.  I just don't know why same sex couples think they got to imitate a traditional marriage by pretending that they're husband and wife.


"separate but equal" didn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny 50 years ago and it will not stand up to it today. And despite your attempts to frame it differently, make no mistake... what will be decided by the SCOTUS will be whether states have a constitutional right to ban same sex couple from getting married. If the bans are deemed unconstitutional, no 'new' right will have been granted to same sex couples, their right to equal protection under the law will simply stop being violated.
 
2014-05-29 11:01:48 PM  

Serious Black: For ages, it was legal and traditional to keep other human beings as personal property. If you were alive in 1860 and were asked to vote on whether slavery should be outlawed, would you have voted to preserve the traditional meaning of property rights?

/ invoke slavery not to compare gay marriage to chattel but to say that tradition itself is not an acceptable argument


We should discontinue traditions that do harm to others.  Slavery harmed others.  Defining marriage between a man and a woman does no harm to others.  It is not unfair to maintain the tradition of marriage.  If people want to live in new, non-traditional relationships, they should create new traditions of their own.  Why do they have to mess with the tradition of marriage?
 
ecl
2014-05-29 11:03:25 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Um, subby? Maybe you could try studying American history before you make stupid comments? Look at black people in America. For centuries, white people enslaved black people, then segregated them, then denied them voting rights, and what happened as a result? Black people rose up and achieved greatness and equality. It's a similar story with women...for a long time, they were basically the property of men. They suffered abuse, they couldn't vote. But their adversities gave them strength, and now they have jobs and earn almost as much as men.

Would black people and women have been able to achieve these goals, win despite all the various adversities in their path, if things had simply been handed to them from the beginning? If they'd been like spoiled rich children born with silver spoons in their mouths?

That right there is the basic divide between Right and Left in America. The Right says, "I believe in your ability to overcome." The Left says, "I don't believe you can succeed without my handouts and concern." Which is truly the more enlightened view? I ask you that.


People have had strokes and died from reading PN... IMO he's a murderer.
 
2014-05-29 11:04:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: What more information could he possibly need?


I don't know. I've rapidly been losing faith in the Supreme Court. Hopefully Kennedy won't be an asshole.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Ten years after Massachusetts became the first state to recognize gay marriages, the equality movement is on the march. It's on a winning streak in fact - with two more judicial victories last week, in Oregon and Pennsylvania, it has now won 14 court decisions in a row expanding the definition of marriage and striking down statutes aimed at keeping matrimony a straights-only institution.
 
2014-05-29 11:06:37 PM  

SkinnyHead: Defining marriage between a man and a woman does no harm to others.


Keep bringing the hits, SH.
 
2014-05-29 11:07:48 PM  

SkinnyHead: Defining marriage between a man and a woman does no harm to others.


Well, you know, gays that don't get the same benefits under the government as straight people kind of beg to differ.
 
Displayed 50 of 220 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 »
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