Gay Marriage

[underdog]

Can someone explain to me, without invoking religion, the opposition to gay marriage? I can't understand what two guys or two women marrying has anything to do with someone else's marriage.

If two girls get married, my marriage to my wife still stands. I can't even understand or fathom a reasonable explanation for why someone would be against letting two people getting married. Especially when the people against gay marriage are "for" civil unions; they'd still have all the rights as a marriage.

People are retarded.

[Chimee]

Slippery slope, my friends.

Next thing you know, someone is trying to marry some ham 'n eggs.

[razorboy]

People are retarded.

Bingo.

[underdog]

Slippery slope, my friends.

Next thing you know, someone is trying to marry some ham 'n eggs.

This is one of my favorite running RnF bits.

[joethebartender]

In the Catholic church "marriage" is a sacrament. As important as any other major step in your life...and always between a man and a woman.
Civil unions are OK because you don't say "marriage".

[yojimbo7248]

In the Catholic church "marriage" is a sacrament. As important as any other major step in your life...and always between a man and a woman.
Civil unions are OK because you don't say "marriage".

But can you defend being against gay marriage without invoking religion, like underdog challenged?

[yojimbo7248]

Can someone explain to me, without invoking religion, the opposition to gay marriage? I can't understand what two guys or two women marrying has anything to do with someone else's marriage.

If two girls get married, my marriage to my wife still stands. I can't even understand or fathom a reasonable explanation for why someone would be against letting two people getting married. Especially when the people against gay marriage are "for" civil unions; they'd still have all the rights as a marriage.

People are retarded.

I couldn't agree more. I wish people who get so worked up over gay marriage at least have the honesty to admit they simply hate gay people. I have never heard a reasonable, non-religious argument for why we should not allow gay marriage in the US.

[booster11373]

But can you defend being against gay marriage without invoking religion, like underdog challenged?

I cant be done

Marriage existed before the bible

[joethebartender]

I cant be done

Marriage existed before the bible

Simple principles of biology. Religion free.

I'm not looking for an argument; I'm for same sex marriage...as far as the state is concerned. I don't even understand the money aspect of it. Will the government lose money if these marriages are allowed? Is this the reason they won't allow it?

The purpose of government; to me, is to ensure liberty. Ours has failed miserably. I feel that this new administration is going to fail us more than we could imagine. Especially in the areas of taxation and taking away liberties with more laws.

[TheMojoPin]

Anytime anyone supports actually RESTRICTING civil rights for huge groups of people...no good.

If people are so up about the "sanctity" of marriage and trampling civil rights to do it, why aren't they clamoring to make divorce illegal?

[Jujubees2]

Anytime anyone supports actually RESTRICTING civil rights for huge groups of people...no good.

If people are so up about the "sanctity" of marriage and trampling civil rights to do it, why aren't they clamoring to make divorce illegal?

Bingo. Isn't more of an assault on the sanctity of marriage when some gets married and divorced multiple times, especially when that person is against gay marriage (see Rush Limbaugh).

[EliSnow]

In the Catholic church "marriage" is a sacrament. As important as any other major step in your life...and always between a man and a woman.
Civil unions are OK because you don't say "marriage".

Acknowledging that this involves religion, where the initial post said no to, homosexuals are not asking the government to allow them to have catholic marriages.

They want to have marriages recognized by the state. The state can recognize the marriage of two men or two women and the Catholic Church does not have to.

The Catholic Church already does that when divorced people get married.

[EliSnow]

Simple principles of biology. Religion free.

Um, many people would argue that marriage is actually against the principles of biology as well, because men and women are not biologically designed to be monogamous.

And if you go with the marriage = procreation theory, then you have to go with Ron's points as to the fact that marriage is allowed between a man and a woman without requiring them to have kids, or between older people who are beyond childbearing years.

[underdog]

Simple principles of biology. Religion free.

If it were an argument about biology, then the anti-gay marriage crowd should be against sterile people getting married and straight people who don't want kids getting married.

[mongothetrucker]

In the Catholic church "marriage" is a sacrament. As important as any other major step in your life...and always between a man and a woman.
Civil unions are OK because you don't say "marriage".

exactly. So a book written 1600 years ago about an invisible man in the sky should dictate someone's happiness? Absurd.

[paracetamol flanders]

exactly. So a book written 1600 years ago about an invisible man in the sky should dictate someone's happiness? Absurd.

Unfortunately, an enormous proportion of Americans want desperately to be part of some mystical in-crowd. An eternal in-crowd which is a sort of extension of the celebrity lifestyle they are obsessed with in the material world. Something where their ego and personality is sustained in a Disneyland of bliss and gold. These people therefore adhere to some pretty exclusionary dogma within their chosen religion, because what good is the in-crowd if it is for every freak out there?

[NewYorkDragons80]

On a federal level, though, the Constitution should only compel states to guarantee the rights of a marriage and the states should be allowed to decide if they will recognize it as a civil union or a marriage.

[epo]

And here is the great irony. The act of marriage would be socially considered to be a "conservative" move as two people, no matter their gender want to join the status quo and legally bind themselves to each other.

:wallbash:

[TheMojoPin]

And here is the great irony. The act of marriage would be socially considered to be a "conservative" move as two people, no matter want to join the status quo and legally bind themselves to each other.

:wallbash:

The wackiness doesn't stop there.

You'd think shedding or loosening the drug laws would be a conservative value because it gets government influence out of our personal decisions and shrinks the power of the government.

You'd think conservatives would be "pro-choice" since being "pro-life" entails a bloating of the federal and state governments in having to make legislature in regards to what women can do with their own bodies.

Kooky.

[SinA]

Do you want a serious argument against or a silly one?


On a side-note: Jon Stewart made a joke the other day that the Mormons, who campaigned strongly in favor of the ban on gay marriage, at one time had to move all the way across the continent and found their own state because no other state would allow their marriage practices.

[NewYorkDragons80]

You'd think conservatives would be "pro-choice" since being "pro-life" entails a bloating of the federal and state governments in having to make legislature in regards to what women can do with their own bodies.

But if you believe that a developing human being has rights and inteference with their development is not a right of anyone, then even for the staunchest libertarian, that is one of government's basic functions. If Ron Paul had his way, the Pentagon would be in a broom closet, but even he thinks that the abortion issue, regardless of your view on it, is not a big government vs. small government issue. Still, I agree with your other examples. However, the people who oppose gay marriage so vehemently are rarely Goldwater-types, and these ballot initiatives like in California fail because the down-ballot Democrats who vote with their union really aren't on board with the social issues in the first place. These things never fail because of Republicans alone.

[underdog]

Do you want a serious argument against or a silly one?

A serious one.

On a side-note: Jon Stewart made a joke the other day that the Mormons, who campaigned strongly in favor of the ban on gay marriage, at one time had to move all the way across the continent and found their own state because no other state would allow their marriage practices.

Try to make that argument with Mormons. They just respond with how their church doesn't follow polygamy and the group that did was a small extremist group that aren't real Mormons.

I also saw one who said, "Not all Mormons think Joseph Smith was a prophet."

[scottinnj]

Why even call it "marriage" when you are talking about the state's involvement? Everyone, straight or gay, should go to the county, get a "civil union" document for legal purposes, then if they are religious, go to a church and have a marriage ceremony. Gay or straight, you can find a church that will perform the ceremony for you.

[joethebartender]

Acknowledging that this involves religion, where the initial post said no to, homosexuals are not asking the government to allow them to have catholic marriages.

They want to have marriages recognized by the state. The state can recognize the marriage of two men or two women and the Catholic Church does not have to.

The Catholic Church already does that when divorced people get married.

Um, many people would argue that marriage is actually against the principles of biology as well, because men and women are not biologically designed to be monogamous.

And if you go with the marriage = procreation theory, then you have to go with Ron's points as to the fact that marriage is allowed between a man and a woman without requiring them to have kids, or between older people who are beyond childbearing years.

If it were an argument about biology, then the anti-gay marriage crowd should be against sterile people getting married and straight people who don't want kids getting married.

exactly. So a book written 1600 years ago about an invisible man in the sky should dictate someone's happiness? Absurd.

Did you not read my last post before typing?

[JPMNICK]

it is a stupid argument, but you can not strip religion out of it. if there was no religion involved, it would be legal by this point

[jennysmurf]

it is a stupid argument, but you can not strip religion out of it. if there was no religion involved, it would be legal by this point

Exactly.

[underdog]

it is a stupid argument, but you can not strip religion out of it. if there was no religion involved, it would be legal by this point

But there's supposed to be a separation. I thought religion wasn't supposed to play a part in law making.

[Zorro]

But there's supposed to be a separation. I thought religion wasn't supposed to play a part in law making.

Well considering there's God on your money and Congress starts each session with a prayer... I'd say god has pretty well entrenched himself in the system.

[jamie38]

I think my dad came up with the most ridiculous argument of all. It was that straight men will be encouraged to marry eachother just so they can get the economic benefits of being married. When I told him that a straight man and a straight woman could just as easily do that under the current system (yet seldom do) he just rolled his eyes at me.

My dad's not even really religious. He just doesn't like gay people. And let's face it, I think that's most peoples real reason for opposing it.

[mongothetrucker]

The caller on R&F that argued that it was a religious issue bugs me. If it's a religious thing, why do the states require a license?

Religion ruins everything.

[Dougie Brootal]

nice tag, fucko.:tongue:

[EliSnow]

I think my dad came up with the most ridiculous argument of all. It was that straight men will be encouraged to marry eachother just so they can get the economic benefits of being married. When I told him that a straight man and a straight woman could just as easily do that under the current system (yet seldom do) he just rolled his eyes at me.

My dad's not even really religious. He just doesn't like gay people. And let's face it, I think that's most peoples real reason for opposing it.

Another problem with your dad's argument is that very, very few straight men would pretend to be gay for any reason. Shit, for most straight men, you call them a fag, they're going to try to beat the shit of out you.

Yet, they're going to get married to another guy for the money?

[MacVittie]

I really can't think of a good argument against gay marriage. Perhaps in the human population was threatened and breeding was imperative, then one could say that homosexuality has a negative impact on society, but then you could just require people to have 4-5 kids and them let them have all the homosex they want. Or, if anal sex carried a greater risk of disease transmission (which I recall being taught in Health class that it does), then maybe I could see an argument, but protected, lubricated anal sex is probably as safe as protected vaginal sex, any diseases that are spread generally aren't a threat to non-participants, and there are many ways to be gay without having anal sex.

So basically, no, I can't think of any biological stance against gay marriage in the 21st century. Thousands of year ago, I imagine people who had anal sex got shit on/in their dicks, got infections, and their dicks fell off, and everyone else thought that it was a punishment from God for being gay. I don't know any gay people today who have had this problem.

[underdog]

nice tag, fucko.:tongue:

I'm glad you appreciate it.

[MadBiker]

The caller on R&F that argued that it was a religious issue bugs me. If it's a religious thing, why do the states require a license?

Religion ruins everything.

The State should get out of the marriage business entirely. See this 2007 article by Stepanie Coontz (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) for some info. Sometimes, the NYTimes hits one out of the park.

[UpperEastSideDave]

I thought the boys had a pretty good convo today about this.

I am a pretty liberal person myself, but I have always lived by the rule "Don't try to join a club if you don't want to play by their rules."

I think this applies in this situation. I fully believe that any person who wants to commit the rest of their lives to each other (are clinically insane) however they should have that right.

I just don't see why people need the name "Marriage" to feel like it matters.

Historically, Marriage was just a mutual agreement almost always between an older man and a younger woman. later on it became a religious ceremony.

I completely understand why same sex couples would want the ability to have the same rights as a couple who are not of the same sex, and I fully support that they should have the exact same rights, all of them, including adopting children and any other hot button subject that a couple who is not of the same sex have.

I just don't see why the word "Marriage" is so important.

anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Serpico1103]

I just don't see why the word "Marriage" is so important.
anyone have any thoughts on this?

By calling hetero unions, marriages, and gay unions, civil unions, you are perpetuating the belief that they are "different." Separate but equal did not work for blacks, and I guess gays don't want to accept it either.
How about, the State calls all unions, gay or straight, civil unions, and lets the religious groups keep the word marriage.
This way if you want to married find a church and get married, and everyone is treated the same under the law.

[IamFogHat]

The way I see it, everyone against it is so for religious reasons, and they are being exclusionary based on moral reasons. Penn Jillette has a good argument that I don't think was in reference to gay marriage but it fits here and that is he has a friend who wears a Free Mason ring who isn't a Free Mason. The rule in the Free Mason organization is only a Free Mason can wear the ring, so when people get mad at him who are in that group he says that's fine, but he's not a member, so those rules don't apply to him. It's a long way of saying people who aren't of that belief system shouldn't be subject to the rules of those who are. This is America for Christ's sake, laws are one thing, but the morality of others should have no bearing on your legal rights whatsoever.

[GreatAmericanZero]

i'm not a gay man so i don't know why its important to call it "marriage"...but it is

so fuck it, let them get married and call it marriage...what do i care? it means absolutely nothing to me. they want it, i can't find any reason why not

[Hottub]

Because then people could file jointly on their taxes.
Because then people could have their partner on their health insurance.

Fuck it. If you love somebody and want to be with them forever, what's the problem.
It doesn't bother me.

[UpperEastSideDave]

All good points. I honestly don't care too much on the issue. I don't believe in god, and my morals are questionable at best.

However, If one day i find a girl who I want to spend forever with, I could care less if it is called a marriage.




I feel that two people who want to live their lives together should be awarded tax privileges and medical insurance privileges as well.


And... believe me... The people who are morally and religiously against it are not at all what I am talking about. I think they ruin the logical aspect of the argument.

[underdog]

my thread was better (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=74345)

My question is still out there : Can someone explain to me, without invoking religion, the opposition to gay marriage?

Telling gays they can get married but it not being called marriage means they're different than "normal" people.

[IamFogHat]

However, If one day i find a girl who I want to spend forever with, I could care less if it is called a marriage.


I think you inadvertently raised the fucking point in all this, it isn't about you, who cares how you or anyone else thinks? If you care or don't care or if your religious or not religious it doesn't matter, it's not about you, it's about the homosexuals who want to get married to someone they love, no one else should be a part of this equation.

[Hottub]

If you remove religion from the equation (see Shirley and her ilk), there really shouldn't be much of an argument.

[underdog]

I think you inadvertently raised the fucking point in all this, it isn't about you, who cares how you or anyone else thinks? If you care or don't care or if your religious or not religious it doesn't matter, it's not about you, it's about the homosexuals who want to get married to someone they love, no one else should be a part of this equation.

Exactly.

And I'm sick of people saying California voted it down, it's democracy in work.

IT SHOULDN'T BE UP FOR A FUCKING VOTE!

[Serpico1103]

my thread was better (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=74345)
My question is still out there : Can someone explain to me, without invoking religion, the opposition to gay marriage?
Telling gays they can get married but it not being called marriage means they're different than "normal" people.
You will disappointed if you are looking for an intelligent answer. These people believe that God created the Earth, then he wrote the 10 commandments, but then "The Almighty" tired out and had others write the Bible for him. You are not dealing with deep thinkers.

[Mullenax]

I do think that on some level it's just married people who don't want other people to think they're gay, religion or not, there's some separatist desire at work.

I bring it up anytime someone asks me why I'm not married, and the answer is that you don't have to be in love, be good people, be faithful, live near each other, know each other, or have any intention of staying married to get married. You just have to be opposite sex and not (closely) related. So screw it. Outside of religion, it's a piece of paper that doesn't prove anything. Let gay people marry, already, if Conan The Barbarian who has been filmed breaking the law and looking silly can be the governor! Ridiculous.

[epo]

Exactly.

And I'm sick of people saying California voted it down, it's democracy in work.

IT SHOULDN'T BE UP FOR A FUCKING VOTE!

I don't understand the "referendum" gimmick either.

If you the legislator need me the citizen whom you are representing, to vote on an item, then you are pretty useless in this process....aren't you?

[underdog]

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CMq7mcPJyu6IEhDUAxgxMghAgdCZm2tfww

[IamFogHat]

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CMq7mcPJyu6IEhDUAxgxMghAgdCZm2tfww

Haha, I blame MoJo.

[underdog]

I enjoy the callers calling in "agreeing" with Ron, completely missing the fact that the slippery slope gimmick is a joke. THESE are the fucking people against gay marriage.

People are fucking retarded.

Also, I'm glad my tag carried over in the merge.

[UpperEastSideDave]

I think you inadvertently raised the fucking point in all this, it isn't about you, who cares how you or anyone else thinks? If you care or don't care or if your religious or not religious it doesn't matter, it's not about you, it's about the homosexuals who want to get married to someone they love, no one else should be a part of this equation.

Understandable.... but why does the word matter so much??

Why is marriage normal when 60% of the people who agree to it end up not being able to honor it?

I would say that marriage could easily be seen as not normal in that aspect alone.

[GreatAmericanZero]

Understandable.... but why does the word matter so much??


i guess you would need a gay person to explain it on this board

i don't know why the word means so much. but it does to them, and it causes me no distress if they use the word...so i say "rock 'n roll"

[underdog]

Understandable.... but why does the word matter so much??

Why is marriage normal when 60% of the people who agree to it end up not being able to honor it?

I would say that marriage could easily be seen as not normal in that aspect alone.

Because if gays have a different word, you're calling them different. They want to be viewed as the same.

I think everyone should have civil unions and only religious people would get married. Then it would remove the retarded religious "argument".

[IamFogHat]

Understandable.... but why does the word matter so much??



Then it's not understandable, and you've missed the entire point completely. Jesus fuckin tap dancing christ, again, why does anyone in this fucking country care about anyone else's business? It's fucking enraging! THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! STOP SAYING YOU'RE THE FREEST COUNTRY ON EARTH UNTIL YOU BECOME IT!

[underdog]

Then it's not understandable, and you've missed the entire point completely. Jesus fuckin tap dancing christ, again, why does anyone in this fucking country care about anyone else's business? It's fucking enraging! THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! STOP SAYING YOU'RE THE FREEST COUNTRY ON EARTH UNTIL YOU BECOME IT!

These colors don't run. Love it or leave it. Don't tread on me.

My wife actually had to inform me what side I was on originally because my thought was just, "I don't care. Why would anyone care?" I still don't get it. Why would anyone give a shit what other people do in their personal lives?

[UpperEastSideDave]

Because if gays have a different word, you're calling them different. They want to be viewed as the same.

I think everyone should have civil unions and only religious people would get married. Then it would remove the retarded religious "argument".

I don't think that we are far removed from each other on how we view this, and I want to repeat that I could give two fucks who people want to call it. I just don't see why a word is so important.

Also, why are we assuming anyone is "Normal"?

What is normal to me is probably very not normal to others.


I understand that a norm to society is that people get married, but again... it is a failing practice that has religious overtones.

Religion does not have a very positive view on homosexuals, why would you want something that is affirmed generally in a way that people who look down on you affirm it?


I again do not believe that any religion is right, and feel that we should all be able to do what I want, I just don't get why anyone will feel better because of a word?

[UpperEastSideDave]

Then it's not understandable, and you've missed the entire point completely. Jesus fuckin tap dancing christ, again, why does anyone in this fucking country care about anyone else's business? It's fucking enraging! THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! STOP SAYING YOU'RE THE FREEST COUNTRY ON EARTH UNTIL YOU BECOME IT!

Why do you feel that the only way to spend forever with someone in a loving way is "marriage"???

Not being able to see that a word doesn't mean a damn thing unless you/we give it meaning is enraging.

[UpperEastSideDave]

These colors don't run. Love it or leave it. Don't tread on me.

My wife actually had to inform me what side I was on originally because my thought was just, "I don't care. Why would anyone care?" I still don't get it. Why would anyone give a shit what other people do in their personal lives?

I honestly am all for everyone doing whatever they want. two gay guys could fuck on an alter using the cross as a huge dildo screaming "fuck me jesus" while getting married in a southern baptist church, and I would not be offended.

I just dont need the word to explain my love for another person, and i guess I don't understand why other people go so insane over it.

If i was gay, I would just say " hey I love this other person, and were going to make a go at it. If I dont have the title, it isnt going to change how I feel"

However I could never understand how that person feels, so I know I am not the utmost authority on it...

[epo]

Why do you feel that the only way to spend forever with someone in a loving way is "marriage"???

Not being able to see that a word doesn't mean a damn thing unless you/we give it meaning is enraging.

Two things can be equal in reality, but if they are different in perception...that can be all the difference in the world.

Two people both have a seat on the bus. Same size seat, same exact bus. No realistic difference. However one person has to sit in the back even if she doesn't want to walk to the back of the bus.

What's the problem, it's the same bus?

I would guess that gays are tired of riding the back of the marriage/civil union bus. And honestly, they shouldn't have to.

[IamFogHat]

Why do you feel that the only way to spend forever with someone in a loving way is "marriage"???

Not being able to see that a word doesn't mean a damn thing unless you/we give it meaning is enraging.

I honestly am all for everyone doing whatever they want. two gay guys could fuck on an alter using the cross as a huge dildo screaming "fuck me jesus" while getting married in a southern baptist church, and I would not be offended.

I just dont need the word to explain my love for another person, and i guess I don't understand why other people go so insane over it.

If i was gay, I would just say " hey I love this other person, and were going to make a go at it. If I dont have the title, it isnt going to change how I feel"

However I could never understand how that person feels, so I know I am not the utmost authority on it...

You keep proving my point again and again, it isn't about you, it's about the gay part of our population who want to be married! You have nothing to do with it, why can you not see this point? Why do you care what they call it, sir? How in god's fucking name does it affect you at all?

I'm sorry I'm so worked up about this, but I have three people in my life specifically that this affects, and it really fucking drives me batshit insane to hear these circular arguments that provide no new insight into their position and only logically previously disproven ones.
CHRIST!

[UpperEastSideDave]

Two things can be equal in reality, but if they are different in perception...that can be all the difference in the world.

Two people both have a seat on the bus. Same size seat, same exact bus. No realistic difference. However one person has to sit in the back even if she doesn't want to walk to the back of the bus.

What's the problem, it's the same bus?

I would guess that gays are tired of riding the back of the marriage/civil union bus. And honestly, they shouldn't have to.

Probably the best explanation so far.

Would you say that Marriage is a religious thing? or just a social thing? <-- honest question.

[underdog]

Would you say that Marriage is a religious thing? or just a social thing? <-- honest question.

It started as religious, but now its a social/government thing. The government recognizes a marriage.

[Serpico1103]

Probably the best explanation so far.

Would you say that Marriage is a religious thing? or just a social thing? <-- honest question.

It is both a legal and religious construct. Let the religious nuts keep marriage and have the state get a new word for all marriages.
Or, make the religious RETARDS use the word for marriage in the Bible's original language.
YES, bible thumpers, the Bible was written by those people you hate in the Mid-East, and it was not written in English.
So, Marriage has not always been the word religions used.

[IamFogHat]

By the way, you fucking idiot religious people, those who claim marriage to be a religious institution should know that in the judeo/christian tradition (and in the Bible, which you all seem to fucking seem to hold so high) the institution of 'marriage' is a fucking institution in which a man takes property of a woman you fucking idiot assholes. Goddammit I'm worked up. The Bible loves a few things; slavery, misogyny, homophobia, racism, violence, sexual repression, and subjugation. Nice religion. Really a loving God. Well, our god is an awesome god indeed.
GODDAMMIT!

[UpperEastSideDave]

You keep proving my point again and again, it isn't about you, it's about the gay part of our population who want to be married! You have nothing to do with it, why can you not see this point? Why do you care what they call it, sir? How in god's fucking name does it affect you at all?

I'm sorry I'm so worked up about this, but I have three people in my life specifically that this affects, and it really fucking drives me batshit insane to hear these circular arguments that provide no new insight into their position and only logically previously disproven ones.
CHRIST!

Bro, I completely support their being together. I feel that they should have tax exemptions, medical rights, they should adopt children if they want. They should have every right that any other citizen of the country in which they reside.

I do not see how the word is going to make them care about each other that much more.


I can logically see how they may feel good having that word, it may make them feel "normal", i just dont see how it will change the way they feel about each other.... it wont right?

The worst part about this conversation between you and I is that we both agree, I just dont get why the word matters. If tomorrow all 50 states said homosexuals can marry, I would be all for it, I just don't see it changing anything.

[Serpico1103]

Bro, I completely support their being together. I feel that they should have tax exemptions, medical rights, they should adopt children if they want. They should have every right that any other citizen of the country in which they reside.

I do not see how the word is going to make them care about each other that much more.


I can logically see how they may feel good having that word, it may make them feel "normal", i just dont see how it will change the way they feel about each other.... it wont right?

The worst part about this conversation between you and I is that we both agree, I just dont get why the word matters. If tomorrow all 50 states said homosexuals can marry, I would be all for it, I just don't see it changing anything.

The word matters because the State says it does. If the state can differentiate you in any way it is easier to take away your rights.
If all states vote in civil unions, then 10 years from now the Federal government bans civil unions, who will care? Only gays. If gays are allowed to "marry", they are brought under the protective umbrella of everyone's rights. The more you can isolate a group the easier it is to discriminate against it.

[UpperEastSideDave]

It started as religious, but now its a social/government thing. The government recognizes a marriage.

it started with greeks and romans, (just found that out myself) it was later brought into religious ceremony.

The aspect of needing the word for taxes and insurance and shit of that nature is 100% understandable. however again, I feel that two people sharing a life together, regardless of sex should be able to have those governmental liberties.

[epo]

Probably the best explanation so far.

Would you say that Marriage is a religious thing? or just a social thing? <-- honest question.

I would defer to a legal expert, but I would say that it is a religious and social thing.

Obviously texts of scripture recognize the "holy union" of two people.
But also social since our government is the force that gives us the legal rights of being married.

In the manner that our society operates; government > religion in terms of law, hence making this a legal issue.

I say this: if two adults of any orientation wanna get married, then god bless ya' for finding somebody that makes you happy.

[Serpico1103]

I say this: if two adults of any orientation wanna get married, then god bless ya' for finding somebody that makes you happy.

I would tell them that if they did love each other, they would kiss each other good bye and promise to never see each other again.
Otherwise, they are just holding hands on the train tracks, waiting for that locomotive to come.

[UpperEastSideDave]

The word matters because the State says it does. If the state can differentiate you in any way it is easier to take away your rights.
If all states vote in civil unions, then 10 years from now the Federal government bans civil unions, who will care? Only gays. If gays are allowed to "marry", they are brought under the protective umbrella of everyone's rights. The more you can isolate a group the easier it is to discriminate against it.

I would agree that the problem is the rules and laws of the states.

I think it is bullshit that our country doesn't recognize any two individuals of consenting age who want to co-exist in the same way.

[epo]

Irony. As I went on my favoritist left-wing site, I see today's special comment on this very topic:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qa4siqvLRQc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qa4siqvLRQc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Call him a douche, but he's dead-on with this one.

[scottinnj]

I honestly am all for everyone doing whatever they want. two gay guys could fuck on an alter using the cross as a huge dildo screaming "fuck me jesus" while getting married in a southern baptist church, and I would not be offended........................

Well, at least as long as you weren't forced to watch. I mean, c'mon, none of our business means none of our business.....which means don't paint a picture.

See? I can be a homophobe and still not give a shit about gay marriage. Yaay! :clap:

[Serpico1103]

I love the slippery slope argument the idiots propose,"If you let gays marry other men, next you will have a man who wants to marry a moose."
Good logic, "If you let men eat moose, next they will eat other men."
The problem is they don't believe in the Bible, but they need a security blanket and the Church is the only thing some people can find.

[UpperEastSideDave]

Well, at least as long as you weren't forced to watch. I mean, c'mon, none of our business means none of our business.....which means don't paint a picture.

See? I can be a homophobe and still not give a shit about gay marriage. Yaay! :clap:

you can only be for gay marriage if you agree to watch... I'll bring the popcorn...

[Serpico1103]

you can only be for gay marriage if you agree to watch... I'll bring the popcorn...

I watch all the time. I keep my eyes open during sex.

[UpperEastSideDave]

Irony. As I went on my favoritist left-wing site, I see today's special comment on this very topic:

Call him a douche, but he's dead-on with this one.

that was well said. emotional. heartfelt. I really am not a huge fan of him, however he makes a very strong case.

And again, I agree with people who want to be together being together and having the same legal rights as everyone else.

I think if it were me, I would say " Fuck the word, it isnt going to change a damn thing"

(that of course is with all legal aspects being equal.)

[UpperEastSideDave]

I watch all the time. I keep my eyes open during sex.

ahh so youre a top... I'm not a bottom... can I still bring the popcorn?

[foodcourtdruide]

My wife and I were married recently by a Judge. We're both Buddhists. Neither of us believe in a Christian God. The argument of the yahoos is that the constitution specifically states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anytime anything is treated dogmatically it's dangerous, and I'd include the constitution in that statement.

[IamFogHat]

you can only be for gay marriage if you agree to watch... I'll bring the popcorn...

Right, so let's make all gay people watch straight porn.
I think you were kidding but I'm still in a state of rage, sorry mah budday. No ill will, I'm just fucking sick of ignorant assholes running this country, nothing personal.

[epo]

I think if it were me, I would say " Fuck the word, it isnt going to change a damn thing"

(that of course is with all legal aspects being equal.)

I understand not needing that word. If my time comes with some cool chick, I really don't care either. But being told that word is good for one group in an equal nation, and not allowed to "your group" is complete and utter bullshit.

[Serpico1103]

My wife and I were married recently by a Judge. We're both Buddhists. Neither of us believe in a Christian God. The argument of the yahoos is that the constitution specifically states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anytime anything is treated dogmatically it's dangerous, and I'd include the constitution in that statement.

The federal constitution does not mention marriage at all. Marriage is a state issue. So, without an amendment the Federal government can not do anything about marriage.

[Serpico1103]

ahh so youre a top... I'm not a bottom... can I still bring the popcorn?

Fez?

[foodcourtdruide]

The federal constitution does not mention marriage at all. Marriage is a state issue. So, without an amendment the Federal government can not do anything about marriage.

So where is marriage defined? Is it defined by each state?

[Serpico1103]

So where is marriage defined? Is it defined by each state?

Yes, every state makes its own laws. That why some states have gay marriage, some have civil unions, and some have the nothing. Of course, that creates the problem of states recognizing gay marriages from other states. I think through the "full faith and credit" clause the states have to honor it. Otherwise, states that didn't want interracial couples were able to avoid recognizing them.

The radical right tried to pass a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage. Yes, the right wing that cries States' rights wanted to expand the Federal government further into your lives.

[epo]

“In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.”

- James Madison, 4th President of the United States. Also considered to be the "father" of the US Constitution.

[foodcourtdruide]

Yes, every state makes its own laws. That why some states have gay marriage, some have civil unions, and some have the nothing. Of course, that creates the problem of states recognizing gay marriages from other states. I think through the "full faith and credit" clause the states have to honor it. Otherwise, states that didn't want interracial couples were able to avoid recognizing them.

The radical right tried to pass a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage. Yes, the right wing that cries States' rights wanted to expand the Federal government further into your lives.

Oh man, that's fucking bullshit. I always heard it was defined a man and woman in the constitution and that's why they believe in it. What an outdated and bigoted way of thinking.

Complete horseshit. Being gay isn't taboo anymore. Why would anyone even fucking care? I feel exactly like IamFogHat.

[Serpico1103]

Oh man, that's fucking bullshit. I always heard it was defined a man and woman in the constitution and that's why they believe in it. What an outdated and bigoted way of thinking.
Complete horseshit. Being gay isn't taboo anymore. Why would anyone even fucking care? I feel exactly like IamFogHat.

That is how the Church controls them. The way a government controls people. They focus your hate on a particular group and then you ignore the fundamental problems of the system.

[UpperEastSideDave]

Right, so let's make all gay people watch straight porn.
I think you were kidding but I'm still in a state of rage, sorry mah budday. No ill will, I'm just fucking sick of ignorant assholes running this country, nothing personal.

No harm no foul Buddday. Again, I completely support the rights of the group. I think it is utter bullshit and an outrage for anyone to not have equal rights in the country they live in.

I just am the guy who would say " fuck the box youre trying to put me in. Your approval is not going to change my life"


Granted... If we are talking about insurance, and taxes, and every other right that "married" couples have... it obviously can change their lives.


i watch a lot of gay sex... Two girls is always a good time :thumbup::tongue:

[Serpico1103]

No harm no foul Buddday. Again, I completely support the rights of the group. I think it is utter bullshit and an outrage for anyone to not have equal rights in the country they live in.
I just am the guy who would say " fuck the box youre trying to put me in. Your approval is not going to change my life"
Granted... If we are talking about insurance, and taxes, and every other right that "married" couples have... it obviously can change their lives.
i watch a lot of gay sex... Two girls is always a good time :thumbup::tongue:

The word does have power. So, of course, I don't care what you call me. But, you better pay attention to how the government classifies you. It matters in many ways.

[IamFogHat]

Oh man, that's fucking bullshit. I always heard it was defined a man and woman in the constitution and that's why they believe in it. What an outdated and bigoted way of thinking.

Complete horseshit. Being gay isn't taboo anymore. Why would anyone even fucking care? I feel exactly like IamFogHat.

Thank god I'm the spokesman for gay rights.
Where's Dougrassou?:happy:

[underdog]

Irony. As I went on my favoritist left-wing site, I see today's special comment on this very topic:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qa4siqvLRQc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qa4siqvLRQc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Call him a douche, but he's dead-on with this one.

Wow. Very well said.

[booster11373]

Just a question,

If Civil union is a choice, couldn't progressive people in California and who want to get married just check the "civil union" box on whatever form is being filled out. Do this for a couple of monyhs or years and see marriage numbers in CA drop

This is probably an oversimplification of the issue

[Serpico1103]

Just a question,
If Civil union is a choice, couldn't progressive people in California and who want to get married just check the "civil union" box on whatever form is being filled out. Do this for a couple of monyhs or years and see marriage numbers in CA drop
This is probably an oversimplification of the issue

That would require cooperation from other people not affected by the ban on gay marriages. While, it might pressure them, it is not ideal. Some people need the government to protect them from other people.
For everyone that says "its democracy in action." That's a cute saying, but we don't live in a democracy.

[MacVittie]

Just a question,

If Civil union is a choice, couldn't progressive people in California and who want to get married just check the "civil union" box on whatever form is being filled out. Do this for a couple of monyhs or years and see marriage numbers in CA drop

This is probably an oversimplification of the issue

I've thought about that too, could married couples in CA change they marriages to civil unions in protest? This would probably cost them some money and may very well be counterproductive, but it would be interested to see how many go through with it.

[Hepcat22]

Now, the gays lost in California. So it is our job, as americans, to start rounding them up in camps. I think that's where we go now. You can't get married but you can be rounded up and put into camps.

[booster11373]

Plus a second thing that people that are sympathetic to the plight of gays can do is stop getting married in churches that are pro prop 8, Stop peutting money in the collection plate untill they change their stance on the issue

Churches are a money making operation first and foremost fuck with their money and you will see changes

[Serpico1103]

I sympathize with gays for their lack of ability to marry. But, they have to fight for their rights, sacrifice for their rights. Too many gays stay closeted, other than the flamboyantly gay, so the public perception is that gays are so different. Black ball players had to deal with death threats while on the team, gay ball players fear being made fun of, so they stay closeted.
How far do you think the civil rights movement would have progressed if every year blacks dressed like Zulu warriors and marched in the village. Stop with the gay pride parade that makes gays look like "flaming queers" instead of the "normal" citizens they are.
You want rights, fight for them.

[IamFogHat]

Haha, anyone else notice the tag?:lol:

[Serpico1103]

Now, the gays lost in California. So it is our job, as americans, to start rounding them up in camps. I think that's where we go now. You can't get married but you can be rounded up and put into camps.

They have been, its called the Boy Scouts.

[EliSnow]

Haha, anyone else notice the tag?:lol:

doug did, a couple of days ago.

[S.D.B.P.]

Something has been bothering me about the opponents of gay marriage. I respect their right to oppose it, but no opponent that I know (I am friends with a few) has been able to give me the support for their argument.

Has anyone heard logical argument that demonstrates how gay marriage could hurt an individual or family?
I am honestly curious about this.

[EliSnow]

Something has been bothering me about the opponents of gay marriage. I respect their right to oppose it, but no opponent that I know (I am friends with a few) has been able to give me the support for their argument.

Has anyone heard logical argument that demonstrates how gay marriage could hurt an individual or family?
I am honestly curious about this.

Here's what I have heard.

First, they start off saying that allowing gay marriage will destabilize and erode the foundation of marriage.

When asked how, usually will say if you allow gays to marry, then two men may just get married, not because they love each other but because they want benefits.

And the words slippery slope will come out, and say if you allow two men or two women two marry, then you have to allow polygamy or threesome or foursome marriages. And where will it end.

Soon, marriage won't be about love, they'll say.

[Serpico1103]

Something has been bothering me about the opponents of gay marriage. I respect their right to oppose it, but no opponent that I know (I am friends with a few) has been able to give me the support for their argument.
Has anyone heard logical argument that demonstrates how gay marriage could hurt an individual or family?
I am honestly curious about this.

These are religious people we are talking about. Logic can play no part in it. Otherwise, there would be no need for faith.
Look up the historical justifications for slavery and discrimination against blacks. They thought slaves were necessary and beneficial to society. They think gay marriage will be detrimental to society. Put up for vote that gay marriages are banned, but so are divorces and premarital sex. See how while that goes.

[KatPw]

When asked how, usually will say if you allow gays to marry, then two men may just get married, not because they love each other but because they want benefits.

I've heard this argument also. By their thinking, all marriages should be questioned (unless the couple have dated for a long time). How do we know all those heterosexual couples are marrying for love, and not for insurance? Hell, people get married for greencards, perhaps they would like to address that also.

[S.D.B.P.]

Here's what I have heard.

First, they start off saying that allowing gay marriage will destabilize and erode the foundation of marriage.
When asked how, usually will say if you allow gays to marry, then two men may just get married, not because they love each other but because they want benefits.
And the words slippery slope will come out, and say if you allow two men or two women two marry, then you have to allow polygamy or threesome or foursome marriages. And where will it end.
Soon, marriage won't be about love, they'll say.

I have heard these arguments, and in my opinion they are not logical.
Plenty of straight people marry for nothing but the benefits (immigration, financial, etc.) so there goes that.
The slippery slope thing is not logical either, because not even gay people would stand up for polygamy or beastiality (which is something they like to throw in there).
I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument against it.

[Serpico1103]

Soon, marriage won't be about love, they'll say.

Marriage being about "love" is a fairly new concept. People didn't get married for love until the 1600s I think, maybe 1500's. It was about property and necessity. Also, I think they condemned love between two people because it interfered with their love for God.
I wish they put up for vote all the tenets of the Bible, but it was all or none.

[Gvac]

Should this be a federal issue or be left to the individual states?

[Don Stugots]

Something has been bothering me about the opponents of gay marriage. I respect their right to oppose it, but no opponent that I know (I am friends with a few) has been able to give me the support for their argument.

Has anyone heard logical argument that demonstrates how gay marriage could hurt an individual or family?
I am honestly curious about this.

i always get this "cause the bible doesn't say it" which it total BS since why would a state care about what the bible says. It really out of dear.

[EliSnow]

Should this be a federal issue or be left to the individual states?



It's a federal issue only to the extent it can be argued that denying gays the right to marry is a violation of the us constitution. Thus far gay marriage proponents have argued the "ban" violets state constitutions.

[Boomer]

There is also something bigger involved that no one wants to face.

Legalizing gay marrages was voted on this November in 7 states. Not a single one passed. Now just because I feel gay people should get married...does that mean I am above our entire system of government? The people have spoken rather clearly on this issue. I feel they're wrong, but does that matter? I am obviously in the minority on this issue.

Do we just enforce our beliefs on others and not care about voting?

[EliSnow]

There is also something bigger involved that no one wants to face.

Legalizing gay marrages was voted on this November in 7 states. Not a single one passed. Now just because I feel gay people should get married...does that mean I am above our entire system of government? The people have spoken rather clearly on this issue. I feel they're wrong, but does that matter? I am obviously in the minority on this issue.

Do we just enforce our beliefs on others and not care about voting?

Certainly, you see the obvious answer to your question? Ron's said it on the show a couple of times.

The Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution to guarantee certain rights so that majority couldn't simply vote and take those rights away from a minority. I think all of the state constitutions do the same thing, and some states actually guarantee more rights than the US Constitution.

Certainly, we didn't trust the majority vote before in the past to block such rights. If a majority of California voters voted to take away homosexuals' rights to vote, do you think we should honor such a vote?

The question in California is does the California Consitution essentially require the California goverment to recognize gay marriage. The California State Supreme Court said yes. Now the question is whether Prop 8 is a legal way to "amend" that constitution.

[No1Throwdown]

it is a stupid argument, but you can not strip religion out of it. if there was no religion involved, it would be legal by this point

when one wants to have logical arguements they usually remove religion ^_^

[Kris10]

I don't believe in marriage at this point since I'm divorced so I can careless who the hell wants to get married. Gay, straight, whatever. It isn't me.

[GreatAmericanZero]

one thing that i think hurts the gay community is that a gay person has to be lumped into the same group as transsexuals.

I think the average straight man can grasp the concept "ok, the way i am attracted to women, thats the way gay people are attracted to other guys". its not that hard to understand

but these people who get there dicks inverted into some weird pussy and get fake tits...thats a hard thing to understand or relate to. In fact, i think if i was a gay man i'd be pissed to be lumped in with transexuals

maybe someone who is more intouch with the gay community can explain it to me..but it just doesn't make sense to me. And there are people that have a sex change and then date people of the gender they changed into. they don't seem to be related

[Boomer]

Certainly, you see the obvious answer to your question? Ron's said it on the show a couple of times.

The Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution to guarantee certain rights so that majority couldn't simply vote and take those rights away from a minority. I think all of the state constitutions do the same thing, and some states actually guarantee more rights than the US Constitution.

Certainly, we didn't trust the majority vote before in the past to block such rights. If a majority of California voters voted to take away homosexuals' rights to vote, do you think we should honor such a vote?

The question in California is does the California Consitution essentially require the California goverment to recognize gay marriage. The California State Supreme Court said yes. Now the question is whether Prop 8 is a legal way to "amend" that constitution.

I have never heard that part of this arguement from Ronnie and am very glad he covered it. It sucks listening at work as sometimes those bastards actually want me to work instead of listening to the show. :furious:

The point of removing someone's rights is good if you believe that gay people had the right given to them by the constitution already. The religous groups fought that they never had the right and quite cleverly rigged the vote so they would win with the "Vote Yes for No" bullshit and never outright mentioning gay marrage at all.

I really am glad this has become a major point of interest in this country as lately we have been restricting people's freedoms and rights a bit too much for my taste. Now that a major group has been picked on, we might just step up to the plate and remember that freedom isn't just something we have our soldiers die for in other countries as a cover for protecting corporate interests while forcing it on people that don't want it. We need to fight for it here first.

(steps down from soapbox and slides into the backgroud as usual)

[west milly Tom]

Certainly, you see the obvious answer to your question? Ron's said it on the show a couple of times.

The Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution to guarantee certain rights so that majority couldn't simply vote and take those rights away from a minority. I think all of the state constitutions do the same thing, and some states actually guarantee more rights than the US Constitution.

Certainly, we didn't trust the majority vote before in the past to block such rights. If a majority of California voters voted to take away homosexuals' rights to vote, do you think we should honor such a vote?

The question in California is does the California Consitution essentially require the California goverment to recognize gay marriage. The California State Supreme Court said yes. Now the question is whether Prop 8 is a legal way to "amend" that constitution.


Which is a fancy way to say when a certain minority group dosent get their way, its ok because California judges are fully prepared to legislate from the bench. Please be honest.

[EliSnow]

Which is a fancy way to say when a certain minority group dosent get their way, its ok because California judges are fully prepared to legislate from the bench. Please be honest.

You need to read my answer closer. I wasn't say that's what should happen. I was pointing why, in certain cases, a majority's vote cannot be honored when it goes against the relevant constitution. Constitution drafters put rights into constitutions for this very purpose. If a majority of California voters voted to take away the rights of homosexuals to vote, is it legislating from the bench to find that such a vote is against the Californina and/or US constitution?

BTW, even the most strict constructionist, like Scalia or Roberts, would agree that the above is true. Where the debate lies is whether the "right" in question is actually protected by the relevant constitution or not.

I never said that it definitely was such a right, because I have never read the California Constitution, but I'm betting you never have either.

[EliSnow]

I have never heard that part of this arguement from Ronnie and am very glad he covered it. It sucks listening at work as sometimes those bastards actually want me to work instead of listening to the show. :furious:


He mentioned a couple of times and used the civil rights movement in the South as an example. The first big steps in the civil rights movement were decisions by the US Supreme Court that certain laws, ordinances, etc in the South violated the US Constitution. One such ruling was Brown v. Board of Education getting right of "separate, but equal." Ron pointed out that essentially the South was using the majority vote to strip blacks of their rights.

[RushLimgod]

Marriage is an institution that has always been based on a commitment between a man and a woman, dating back to the dawn of history. Why should it be changed to accommodate any group that feels disenfranchised? The gays have civil unions and that should suffice.

The moral fabric of this country has been coming unwound for some time and just because you heathens don't mind the debauchery and sodomizing that's been going on in this country doesn't mean that folks like me with morals and intestine fortitude won't kill every last one of you to get this country back to where it needs to be...preferably pre 1960's.

[Dougie Brootal]

Haha, anyone else notice the tag?:lol:

doug did, a couple of days ago.

and ill never forgive you people.

[Serpico1103]

Marriage is an institution that has always been based on a commitment between a man and a woman, dating back to the dawn of history. Why should it be changed to accommodate any group that feels disenfranchised? The gays have civil unions and that should suffice.

The moral fabric of this country has been coming unwound for some time and just because you heathens don't mind the debauchery and sodomizing that's been going on in this country doesn't mean that folks like me with morals and intestine fortitude won't kill every last one of you to get this country back to where it needs to be...preferably pre 1960's.

What effect are your several divorces having on the "moral fabric" of this country?
Shut up, hypocrite.

[keithy_19]

Cause it's not natural. That's what people say.


I, for one, am fine with gay marriage. Doesnt bother me in the least.

[sailor]

bloomberg (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/03/25/2009-03-25_mayor_bloomberg_urges_new_york_state_to_.html) is behind gay marriage in new york, but i don't think he really has any official power regarding the matter.

[~Katja~]

bloomberg (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/03/25/2009-03-25_mayor_bloomberg_urges_new_york_state_to_.html) is behind gay marriage in new york, but i don't think he really has any official power regarding the matter.

He was often seen behind Weber as well...
http://georgeweber.net/MAYOR_BLOOMBERG_AND_GEORGE.jpg

hmmmm

[TjM]

Let them be as miserable as the rest of us

Ah boo


Seriously though I don't care. Hell my marriage is not recognized by the catholic church because I married a protestant. In order to have it recognized I would have had to attend 2 months of classes and then write a 3 page essay to the Arch Dioceses to plead my case as to why they should allow me to marry her. The day they told me that was the day I broke my ties with the church and any form of religion

[fezfez]

Civil unions won't suffice because they don't cover everything like being able to visit a partner in the hospital or social security benefits.

[Hottub]

Civil unions won't suffice because they don't cover everything like being able to visit a partner in the hospital or social security benefits.

Does a Civil Union allow you to share Health Care benefits, or file a joint tax return?

[ToiletCrusher]

happy marriage

[~Katja~]

Does a Civil Union allow you to share Health Care benefits, or file a joint tax return?

it depends on the state. Some states do not recognize civil unions, neither do some insurance carriers. There is no one for all regulation on it.

However when it comes to having people visit in the hospitals and make decisions on your behalf, anybody is able to legally decide that and put it in writing.

I am not against gay marriage, heck I am not even for hetero sexual marriage. Marriage does not mean the same it used to from when it originated and anything it enables you to do you can achieve in other legal ways.

[MikeB]

civil union would be a great name for a wrestling tag team.

[A.J.]

civil union would be a great name for a wrestling tag team.

And it would compliment the homoerotic undertones of wrestling very nicely.

[TjM]

civil union would be a great name for a wrestling tag team.



Mah Gawd King Civil Union Just Delivered The Patented Ass Reamer!!!!

[CountryBob]

I tell ya, I used to be homophobic and was one of those jackasses who was against everything gay. But recently my constantly depressed cousin cam out and after being around him and his partner, I have changed my opinions and beliefs. My cousin is now happier and his partner is really a cool dude. I dont hang with them but see them at family functions and the only thing that would make them complete would be legal marriage. Even though they live together - my cousin explained that being able to be married would complete his soul and i tend to agree. Let em get married. Life is too short and happiness is crucial - not only for you but for everybody you come in contact with daily.

[kdubya]

Civil unions won't suffice because they don't cover everything like being able to visit a partner in the hospital or social security benefits.

I agree, and the bigger issue is if one group gets married and another has civil unions you have a separate but equal situation. That isn't true equality.

[Brad in Bama]

I would actually change my "marriage" to my wife, to a civil union. We got married at a court house. I left all that pile of religion out of it.

I say let everyone get civil or married to whomever they want. If it leads to a man wanting to marry a fish, or a bear, so be it.

[TjM]

Lewis Black did a great bit on the origins of marriage. Something about the religious leaders needing to clarify it was between a man and a woman after a young hebrew man fell head over heels for his beloved donkey

[Brad in Bama]

Civil unions won't suffice because they don't cover everything like being able to visit a partner in the hospital or social security benefits.

Appoint power of atorney, and draw up a living will. I have a cousin who is gay. That's what they did. It's more bullet proof than marriage.

Beat the system if it doesn't suit you.

[TjM]

Found it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhz1fd3gmHY

[CountryBob]

I would actually change my "marriage" to my wife, to a civil union. We got married at a court house. I left all that pile of religion out of it.

I say let everyone get civil or married to whomever they want. If it leads to a man wanting to marry a fish, or a bear, so be it.

Haha - Fish Bride - that made me laugh!

[A.J.]

I say let everyone get civil or married to whomever they want. If it leads to a man wanting to marry a fish, or a bear, so be it.

Haha - Fish Bride - that made me laugh!

So hot.

http://thewarrenreport.com/wp-content/uploads/darryl-hannah-splash.jpg

[underdog]

First Iowa (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7248415) and now Vermont (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=7277856). Double the states in a week. This is good news.

[KatPw]

First Iowa (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7248415) and now Vermont (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=7277856). Double the states in a week. This is good news.
Woo Hoo!
I've heard rumors that New Hampshire is next up.

[underdog]

Woo Hoo!
I've heard rumors that New Hampshire is next up.

New Hampshire's motto is "Live Free Or Die". The fact that it hasn't been legalized up there yet is puzzling.

I find living through this social moment so exciting. It's very thrilling watching it all unfold.

[Furtherman]

I tell ya, I used to be homophobic and was one of those jackasses who was against everything gay. But recently my constantly depressed cousin cam out and after being around him and his partner, I have changed my opinions and beliefs. My cousin is now happier and his partner is really a cool dude. I dont hang with them but see them at family functions and the only thing that would make them complete would be legal marriage. Even though they live together - my cousin explained that being able to be married would complete his soul and i tend to agree. Let em get married. Life is too short and happiness is crucial - not only for you but for everybody you come in contact with daily.

This is what needs to happen to all the gay haters. Once they get to know them, most people will forget why they even shunned them in the first place. When I first moved to NYC I cringed when I saw guys holding hands. I laugh about that old me.

First Iowa (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7248415) and now Vermont (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=7277856). Double the states in a week. This is good news.

So THAT'S what all those guys were doing in that Iowa cornfield.

This is good news. It shows an American maturity. Still have a ways to go though.

[Gvac]

Gross.

[shortchaz]

not really sure why the govt is involved in recognizing religious title, but because they are it seems only fair that they recognize all religious title. it would seem easier to legally change the definition of marriage to include consenting adults of the same sex then to change the term marriage to civil union.

[angrymissy]

Did anyone see this shit? I found it through Twitter. Horrible.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[lleeder]

Did anyone see this shit? I found it through Twitter. Horrible.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I like how they steal rainbow away from the gays. "A rainbow coalition of people are coming together..."

[GreatAmericanZero]

Did anyone see this shit? I found it through Twitter. Horrible.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

i watched it twice and i still don't know what the fuck they are talking about

[underdog]

Did anyone see this shit? I found it through Twitter. Horrible.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I like that the chick said, "I'm scared." Of what?

[lleeder]

I like that the chick said, "I'm scared." Of what?

Two vaginas rubbing together?

[underdog]

Two vaginas rubbing together?

I don't think anyone is afraid of scissoring.

[Gvac]

Call me crazy, but wasn't this country founded upon the principles of freedom of religion and fighting for what you believe in?

Some people are for gay marriage. Others are against it. Big deal.

These people aren't advocating killing all homosexuals or imprisoning them. They're merely stating their case.

Saying "They don't think like me so I hate them" is exactly the kind of extremism we rail against.

[lleeder]

I don't think anyone is afraid of scissoring.

Maybe tummy sticks has her concerned.

[Aggie]

Call me crazy, but wasn't this country founded upon the principles of freedom of religion and fighting for what you believe in?

Some people are for gay marriage. Others are against it. Big deal.

These people aren't advocating killing all homosexuals or imprisoning them. They're merely stating their case.

Saying "They don't think like me so I hate them" is exactly the kind of extremism we rail against.

Wow, I agree with Gvac. If it's not hurting anyone, anyone can think what they want. It's ridiculous to say that if someone thinks different they are wrong.

[angrymissy]

Call me crazy, but wasn't this country founded upon the principles of freedom of religion and fighting for what you believe in?

Some people are for gay marriage. Others are against it. Big deal.

These people aren't advocating killing all homosexuals or imprisoning them. They're merely stating their case.

Saying "They don't think like me so I hate them" is exactly the kind of extremism we rail against.

I don't like them because they think gays being married are somehow taking rights away from them. It doesn't affect them in any way, shape or form.

This video infuriates me.

It doesn't affect them personally, yet they wish to dictate how other people define their love and relationships.

[Gvac]

I don't like them because they think gays being married are somehow taking rights away from them. It doesn't affect them in any way, shape or form.

This video infuriates me.

It doesn't affect them personally, yet they wish to dictate how other people define their love and relationships.

How about the mother who spoke of the public school system teaching her children that it was OK?

It started with "I have two mommies" and things like that. Is it right for a government institution to teach social and moral values? What happened to separation of church and state? Is it only OK if the views they teach are in accord with the liberal point of view?

I'm not fighting you, Missy...just playing devil's advocate and stating the facts. It's hard to see things objectively, especially when we're passionate about an issue, but that's what we're supposed to do as Americans.

I'm pro-choice, but as long as they're not blowing up clinics and killing doctors, I think the pro-life crowd has every right to protest. I don't hate them for it.

If your tax payer money was going to fund public schools that taught abortion was murder wouldn't you be upset? That's exactly how these people feel.

[underdog]

It started with "I have two mommies" and things like that. Is it right for a government institution to teach social and moral values?

But teaching only "mommy & daddy" is still teaching social and moral values.

Teaching "mommy & daddy" and "mommy & mommy" is teaching the truth, because both exist. It's not teaching social and moral values, it's just teaching existence.

[booster11373]

Give me 1 reason why gays getting married is going to effect anyone one elses marriage please!

[underdog]

Give me 1 reason why gays getting married is going to effect anyone one elses marriage please!

Because religion.

[Gvac]

But teaching only "mommy & daddy" is still teaching social and moral values.

Teaching "mommy & daddy" and "mommy & mommy" is teaching the truth, because both exist. It's not teaching social and moral values, it's just teaching existence.

To these people, the very fact that it exists is an affront. They don't believe same sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

The child in a "mommy and mommy" couple only got here because of a "mommy and daddy" right? To them that proves it's the only real way to raise a child.

[underdog]

To these people, the very fact that it exists is an affront. They don't believe same sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

The child in a "mommy and mommy" couple only got here because of a "mommy and daddy" right? To them that proves it's the only real way to raise a child.

So send them to a private school. Or teach them at home.

If I didn't like that the public school was teaching about all the good things Jews do, I'd just teach my kids at home. Or send them to a Catholic school.

[Furtherman]

Did anyone see this shit? I found it through Twitter. Horrible.

Call me crazy, but wasn't this country founded upon the principles of freedom of religion and fighting for what you believe in?

People once believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

It's ridiculous to say that if someone thinks different they are wrong.

I think the Sun revolves around the Earth!


Is it ridiculous to say I'm wrong?


This isn't a matter of faith or principle. It's a matter of education and common sense. The people depicted in that video above? Probably actors, but there are people who think that way. People who want to prevent something as uneventful in the grand scale of human nature such as gay marriage. These people are trapped in a close-minded world. So what if two people have some crazy ceremony and now proclaim they're "married". What difference does that make, besides financially?

There are more important issues to create a "coalition of rainbow people" or whatever they think they're doing.

What they're really doing is wasting our time.

[underdog]

People once believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Some still do (http://www.fixedearth.com/)

I'd be willing to be that those people are also anti-gay marriage.

[Gvac]

So send them to a private school. Or teach them at home.

If I didn't like that the public school was teaching about all the good things Jews do, I'd just teach my kids at home. Or send them to a Catholic school.

So if public schools started teaching that homosexuality was a sin and that every kid with two mommies was a freak you'd just quietly teach your children at home?

Be serious.

We're Americans. We stand up, and fight for, what we believe in.

[epo]

To these people, the very fact that it exists is an affront. They don't believe same sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

The child in a "mommy and mommy" couple only got here because of a "mommy and daddy" right? To them that proves it's the only real way to raise a child.

Which is fine and its their right to complain and protest, but I for one would like my educational systems teaching facts. Thats how we'll build and improve our society.

And here is the thing...if they don't like it, they can teach their children values at home independent of the schools and/or spend the dollars and opt out by sending their kids to private schools.

When we change our society to dictate to beliefs rather than facts, we are weakened. When we change our society to extend freedoms rather than deny them to others, we are strengthened.

[underdog]

So if public schools started teaching that homosexuality was a sin and that every kid with two mommies was a freak you'd just quietly teach your children at home?

Be serious.

We're Americans. We stand up, and fight for, what we believe in.

If American public schools starting teaching that certain things are sins, I'd probably leave the country.

[Gvac]

Which is fine and its their right to complain and protest, but I for one would like my educational systems teaching facts. Thats how we'll build and improve our society.

And here is the thing...if they don't like it, they can teach their children values at home independent of the schools and/or spend the dollars and opt out by sending their kids to private schools.

When we change our society to dictate to beliefs rather than facts, we are weakened. When we change our society to extend freedoms rather than deny them to others, we are strengthened.

You're saying the same thing as underdog; if the government is doing something you believe is morally wrong, you should just stay home.

Thank God the Vietnam protesters didn't share this point of view.

[booster11373]

So if public schools started teaching that homosexuality was a sin and that every kid with two mommies was a freak you'd just quietly teach your children at home?

Be serious.

We're Americans. We stand up, and fight for, what we believe in.

We can fight but it does have to fit in to the model of our established rights under the constitution

[Gvac]

Public schools do not exist to be a moral compass.

They shouldn't preach any sort of social or political values.

[Gvac]

We can fight but it does have to fit in to the model of our established rights under the constitution

Exactly, and like I said, that's exactly what the people in this video are doing. Peaceful protest. They're not advocating violence in any way, shape, or form.

Leave 'em be.

[booster11373]

Exactly, and like I said, that's exactly what the people in this video are doing. Peaceful protest. They're not advocating violence in any way, shape, or form.

Leave 'em be.

But they are advocating to change those rights for some based on religious feelings

[epo]

You're saying the same thing as underdog; if the government is doing something you believe is morally wrong, you should just stay home.

Thank God the Vietnam protesters didn't share this point of view.

Many christian fundamentals object to the public school curriculum that teach scientific beliefs which are either based in hard facts or scientific theory. They would like our government to teach scientific theories which are based in the biblical texts (i.e. 6000yr old planet) which contradict scientific theory (which happens to be the point of the curriculum).

What I'm saying is that our public education system is the most important thing our tax dollars pay for, in my opinion. In that system, all we ask for is a FACT based system that strengthens our culture.

Morality has nothing to do with the issue. Take your morality and do that shit at home.

[Gvac]

Many christian fundamentals object to the public school curriculum that teach scientific beliefs which are either based in hard facts or scientific theory. They would like our government to teach scientific theories which are based in the biblical texts (i.e. 6000yr old planet) which contradict scientific theory (which happens to be the point of the curriculum).

What I'm saying is that our public education system is the most important thing our tax dollars pay for, in my opinion. In that system, all we ask for is a FACT based system that strengthens our culture.

Morality has nothing to do with the issue. Take your morality and do that shit at home.

BINGO!

You don't think schools should teach biblical stories.

Religious people don't think schools should teach morality.

It's not that difficult of a concept.

I agree with both sides.

[booster11373]

Are there any Atheists or Agnostics that are against gay marriage?

[underdog]

Public schools do not exist to be a moral compass.

They shouldn't preach any sort of social or political values.

I agree.

Exactly, and like I said, that's exactly what the people in this video are doing. Peaceful protest. They're not advocating violence in any way, shape, or form.

Leave 'em be.

But they're trying to interfere with other people's lives, in something that does not effect them at all. It's not really a peaceful protest.

[Gvac]

I'm sorry underdog, but the debate is over.

I won.

[underdog]

I'm sorry underdog, but the debate is over.

I won.

Congratulations.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they are against gay marriage without invoking religion.

[epo]

I'm sorry underdog, but the debate is over.

I won.

So you'll finally be able to get married to Underdog?

[biozombie]

Congratulations.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they are against gay marriage without invoking religion.

The main reason I'm for it is because it bums out the Pope, the Evangelicals, etc.

[SatCam]

How about the mother who spoke of the public school system teaching her children that it was OK?

It started with "I have two mommies" and things like that. Is it right for a government institution to teach social and moral values? What happened to separation of church and state? Is it only OK if the views they teach are in accord with the liberal point of view?

This is exactly what they want you to think!!!! I know that what you're arguing is a valid issue (teaching moral & ethical values in public school) BUT this has nothing to do with gay marriage!!! They threw that argument in there and it really has nothing to do with the issue at all. If gay marriage was universally legalized, what does that have to do with what is taught in schools??? The law would have nothing to do with what kids are taught, just which couples can get marriage licenses.

[stormy1065]

i've never understood the need for us to be equal so to speak.i'm a lesbian and i've never considered it.if you marry you bring up the divorce issue.you can do everything through a lawyer to cover your ass now.i don't see the importance.we've always been so proud of our diverse sub groups in the gay community.an all our differences from the breeders.why try to fit in with the norm.i don't get it.

[shortchaz]

i've never understood the need for us to be equal so to speak.i'm a lesbian and i've never considered it.if you marry you bring up the divorce issue.you can do everything through a lawyer to cover your ass now.i don't see the importance.we've always been so proud of our diverse sub groups in the gay community.an all our differences from the breeders.why try to fit in with the norm.i don't get it.sounds kinky

[Gvac]

So we all agree?

Amazing!

Marriage is for a man and woman only!

No slippery slopes!

We could have had our first 100% poll.

[Dell]

marriages may start out gay... but eventually there will be sad times... successful relationships require a lot of work and cannot be happy and carefree all of the time... life seems to dictate that marriages cannot be gay... therefore, marriages are bi (QED)

[TjM]

HOW THE FUCK ARE THEY TAKING YOUR FREEDOM AWAY!!!!!! HOW ARE THEY CHANGING THE WAY YOU LIVE YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES!


Holy shit :furious: Where's the tylenol

[IamFogHat]

HOW THE FUCK ARE THEY TAKING YOUR FREEDOM AWAY!!!!!! HOW ARE THEY CHANGING THE WAY YOU LIVE YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES!


Holy shit :furious: Where's the tylenol

Wow, it's not even 11:00, how do you get so riled up this early you silly goose?:tongue:

[KatPw]

HOW THE FUCK ARE THEY TAKING YOUR FREEDOM AWAY!!!!!! HOW ARE THEY CHANGING THE WAY YOU LIVE YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES!


Holy shit :furious: Where's the tylenol

This. All of it, including the tylenol thing.
These people are way too occupied with what goes on in other peoples' hearts and bedrooms. They all must really be afraid that their spouse or children are secretly homosexual and will come out once homosexuals are able to get married. These people are bigots, and should be treated as such.

[TjM]

For some reason that video infuriated me and I'm not even gay

[A.J.]

Did anyone see this shit? I found it through Twitter. Horrible.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Oh, be nice!

[disneyspy]

For some reason that video infuriated me and I'm not even gay

oddly gay? whats that?

[IamFogHat]

Did anyone see this shit? I found it through Twitter. Horrible.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Is this a parody?

[TjM]

oddly gay? whats that?

Gay on leap years

[underdog]

This. All of it, including the tylenol thing.
These people are way too occupied with what goes on in other peoples' hearts and bedrooms. They all must really be afraid that their spouse or children are secretly homosexual and will come out once homosexuals are able to get married. These people are bigots, and should be treated as such.

I'm going to go ahead and say every single person in that video is secretly gay.

And any person who heads one of these anti-gay organizations is basically just Ted Haggard.

[A.J.]

I'm going to go ahead and say every single person in that video is secretly gay.

And any person who heads one of these anti-gay organizations is basically just Ted Haggard.

Or Larry Craig.

[Gvac]

Oh, be nice!

http://www.daviddylanthomas.com/wp-content/uploads/blog/gaysteelmill.jpg

[IMSlacker]

Did anyone see this shit? I found it through Twitter. Horrible.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wp76ly2_NoI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I'm surprised Gvac hasn't left some positive feedback yet.

[Gvac]

I'm surprised Gvac hasn't left some positive feedback yet.

Thanks for the reminder!

Done.

[IMSlacker]

Thanks for the reminder!

Done.

Nice job!

[A.J.]

I'm surprised Gvac hasn't left some positive feedback yet.

Thanks for the reminder!

Done.

Shirley would be proud.

[Snoogans]

gay marriage is for queers

[TjM]

There are no words


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GpjPzhSjPqQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GpjPzhSjPqQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[TjM]

Lord For Fucking Bid Are Kids Think In New Ways!

[Gvac]

I just had to leave ANOTHER message on the original video's page.

[A.J.]

Maybe if the gays listened to The What Show (http://www.thewhatshow.com/), they might change their desire for marriage!

[Gvac]

I can't embed a video (Dunno how)

To the right of the videos there is an embed code.

Just copy it and paste it into your reply.

[TjM]

To the right of the videos there is an embed code.

Just copy it and paste it into your reply.

You're a gentleman and a scholar

[Gvac]

Any time, brother.

Now please try to live a good Christian life.

Jesus is watching you.

Thank you.

[IamFogHat]

Jesus is watching you.



Even when I masturbate? Christ sounds like kind of a perv to me.

[Gvac]

Even when I masturbate? Christ sounds like kind of a perv to me.

Keep laughing, devil worshiper.

Let's see if Lucifer grants you comfort and aid in the afterlife.

[A.J.]

Keep laughing, devil worshiper.

Let's see if Lucifer grants you comfort and aid in the afterlife.

He's in need of some restraint.

[booster11373]

If marriage is such a valuable institution then lets also get rid of no fault divorce

[Suspect Chin]

The wackiness doesn't stop there.

You'd think shedding or loosening the drug laws would be a conservative value because it gets government influence out of our personal decisions and shrinks the power of the government.

You'd think conservatives would be "pro-choice" since being "pro-life" entails a bloating of the federal and state governments in having to make legislature in regards to what women can do with their own bodies.

Kooky.

The worst thing that ever happened to the conservative party was taking on the evangelical Christians. Now pure conservative ideals are muddled with religious irrationality. In today's party, individual freedoms take a backseat to imposed morality.

[IMSlacker]

The Colbert Report did a very good parody of the "A Storm is Coming" ad last night.

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/'>The Colbert Report</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224789/april-16-2009/the-colbert-coalition-s-anti-gay-marriage-ad'>The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/'>colbertnation.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:224789' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/full-episodes'>Colbert Report Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/2009/03/23/breaking-colbert-wins-nasas-node-3-naming-contest/'>NASA Name Contest</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

[TjM]

The Colbert Report did a very good parody of the "A Storm is Coming" ad last night.

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/'>The Colbert Report</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224789/april-16-2009/the-colbert-coalition-s-anti-gay-marriage-ad'>The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/'>colbertnation.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:224789' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/full-episodes'>Colbert Report Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/2009/03/23/breaking-colbert-wins-nasas-node-3-naming-contest/'>NASA Name Contest</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

Armagayden :lol:

[ToiletCrusher]

Marriages should be happy.

[Melk]

Now please try to live a good Christian life.

Jesus is watching you.
I remember when I went to Sunday School as a kid and the instructors informed me that when I do bad things Jesus cries. I decided that Jesus was, at the very least, effeminate and possibly carrying a secret.

[Serpico1103]

The government should only administer civil unions between people, straight or gay. If you want a marriage, have a religious ceremony.

[EliSnow]

The government should only administer civil unions between people, straight or gay. If you want a marriage, have a religious ceremony.

The problem is that government benefits for married people are the same whether you got married in a church or by a justice of the peace. For the government, marriage is marriage and doesn't place a higher recognition on one that is recognized by a religion versus one that isn't. If it did, that would arguably be a constitutional violation of the first amendment.

The churches don't have to (and don't recognize) marriages that are done within their rules, so what's the big fucking deal?

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

If a church and its people don't believe a marriage by their definition is between two sexes and that's it's not God's will, then no one is requiring them to recognize or perform such marriages. But if the government decides that it will recognize marriages by gays and provide governmental benefits based on it, that's the government's right to do that.

[EliSnow]

The worst thing that ever happened to the conservative party was taking on the evangelical Christians. Now pure conservative ideals are muddled with religious irrationality. In today's party, individual freedoms take a backseat to imposed morality.

I once had an argument with a southern republican about that very thing. I said the goal of the republican party was always that government is not a trusthworthy body, and should be kept small and out of people's lives to let them live as much as possible.

But with by stepping in and legislating morality that contradicted traditional republican beliefs.

He did not agree with me.

[Serpico1103]

The problem is that government benefits for married people are the same whether you got married in a church or by a justice of the peace. For the government, marriage is marriage.
The churches don't have to (and don't recognize) marriages that are done within their rules, so what's the big fucking deal?
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."
If a church and its people don't believe a marriage by their definition is between two sexes, no one is forcing them to change that. But if the government decides that it will recognize marriages by gays and provide governmental benefits based on it, that's the government's right to do that.

I suggest the civil union for everyone as a solution, so people can stop using the religious idea of marriage, the "tradition" of marriage, and other similar arguments.
If marriage does mean only between a man and a women, fine, SEPARATE the government from a religious institution, and only have governmental civil unions. They will have all the rights that the government now grants for marriage, but it won't have the historical baggage.

[EliSnow]

I suggest the civil union for everyone as a solution, so people can stop using the religious idea of marriage, the "tradition" of marriage, and other similar arguments.
If marriage does mean only between a man and a women, fine, SEPARATE the government from a religious institution, and only have governmental civil unions. They will have all the rights that the government now grants for marriage, but it won't have the historical baggage.

Again, the government provides benefits to marriages, whether religious or not. And has done so for a long, long time. It's ridiculous to know tell people who have such a marriage, that now they really don't have a marriage because they didn't go to a church. You would likely see the same constitutional arguments to that, that you see for gay marriages.

[Serpico1103]

Again, the government provides benefits to marriages, whether religious or not. And has done so for a long, long time. It's ridiculous to know tell people who have such a marriage, that now they really don't have a marriage because they didn't go to a church. You would likely see the same constitutional arguments to that, that you see for gay marriages.

Things change. The fact that the government gives benefits to people who marry is the exact reason why gays should be able to get married. But, if people insist that "marriage" is between a man and a woman, as practiced throughout history and in religion, than change the government's term for the license that they grant.
I would prefer to let gays get married by the state, but a civil union only for gays is not the answer, just like separate but equal was not the answer; it is never equal and it continues a cycle of bigotry.
You don't have a constitutional right to the name marriage.

[EliSnow]

Things change. The fact that the government gives benefits to people who marry is the exact reason why gays should be able to get married. But, if people insist that "marriage" is between a man and a woman, as practiced throughout history and in religion, than change the government's term for the license that they grant.
I would prefer to let gays get married by the state, but a civil union only for gays is not the answer, just like separate but equal was not the answer; it is never equal and it continues a cycle of bigotry.
You don't have a constitutional right to the name marriage.


You do have a right to equal treatment under the law regardless of religion, sexual orientation, race etc. And marriage now is as much of governmental institution as it is religious.

You say things change? They do. But no one is asking religions to change and there is no need to. Calling a state union a marriage doesn't affect them other than they don't want a man to call someone his husband. There is no reason to change the term other than to placate these unreasonable people.

[Serpico1103]

You do have a right to equal treatment under the law regardless of religion, sexual orientation, race etc. And marriage now is as much of governmental institution as it is religious.

You say things change? They do. But no one is asking religions to change and there is no need to. Calling a state union a marriage doesn't affect them other than they don't want a man to call someone his husband. There is no reason to change the term other than to placate these unreasonable people.

EXACTLY!

[EliSnow]

EXACTLY!


And my point is that's no reason.

[Serpico1103]

And my point is that's no reason.

Getting people their rights is the reason, appeasing the irationale is the method.

[Brad in Bama]

Other than the religious idiots who want to cling to the whole "sacred bond" or whatever the hell they're going on and on about, it really is dumb. Let people marry whomever they want. Who cares besides the Jesus freaks.

[underdog]

I support opposite marriage.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8XMvviFbkf0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8XMvviFbkf0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[EliSnow]

Getting people their rights is the reason, appeasing the irationale is the method.

You can give them their rights without appeasing the irrational. It worked with the civil rights movement.

[RMPGP]

http://www.sirlin.net/storage/articles/slippery.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1224996790 467

http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/wp-content/media/2006/10/slippery_slope.jpg

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/slippery_slope.gif

http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/slippery_slope.png

[SP1!]

I will fight for the legalization of gay marriage if it means that perez hilton is never allowed to speak again, what a douchey bitch

[underdog]

NH Senate votes to allow gay marriage (http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/new_jersey/20090429_ap_nhsenatevotestoallowgaymarriage.html)

The state Senate voted Wednesday to move New Hampshire a step closer to becoming the fifth state to allow gay marriage, but made a distinction between religious and civil ceremonies, bringing back an idea the House rejected in March.

[Gvac]

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s109/GregRotten/lp.jpg

[Stalker Patti]

To me, if two people choose to get married, no matter what their sexual orientation, that is their business and their right. Who am I to impose my values on them? We are free to choose who we want to fall in love with. Nobody else can dictate that for you. Everyone has to give the lord an account of their own Life someday, and the same would apply for me. I just mind my business except to lend support and help where needed and when asked.

[Gvac]

To me, if two people choose to get married, no matter what their sexual orientation, that is their business and their right. Who am I to impose my values on them? We are free to choose who we want to fall in love with. Nobody else can dictate that for you. Everyone has to give the lord an account of their own Life someday, and the same would apply for me. I just mind my business except to lend support and help where needed and when asked.

Fag lover.

[Stalker Patti]

Fag lover.

You totally miss my point sir. What I mean is that I wouldn't choose that kind of union for ME, but who am I to judge someone else who feels different. Have a nice day.

[Charlie_Don't_Surf]

To me, if two people choose to get married, no matter what their sexual orientation, that is their business and their right. Who am I to impose my values on them? We are free to choose who we want to fall in love with. Nobody else can dictate that for you. Everyone has to give the lord an account of their own Life someday, and the same would apply for me. I just mind my business except to lend support and help where needed and when asked.

Oh yeah, how's that working for you? It's like Fez the other day trying to argue the computer "thinking" like a human for Jeopardy during a segment. JK

You're right it's just that
1) Gays are a part of population with no other defining trait than their sexual preference. This makes it hard for some to see them as a group in terms of civil rights. To me they are more akin to an interest group like the NRA.
2) Also marriage as it stand is a church thing, what people do in a courtroom is civil union but in my opinion this also applies to straight couples.

[Gvac]

You totally miss my point sir. What I mean is that I wouldn't choose that kind of union for ME, but who am I to judge someone else who feels different. Have a nice day.

No, I didn't miss your point.

You love homos.

Just admit it.

[Gvac]

You totally miss my point sir. What I mean is that I wouldn't choose that kind of union for ME, but who am I to judge someone else who feels different. Have a nice day.

This is most likely the most overused cop-out line ever.

"I don't judge" or "Who am I to judge?"

We ALL judge, on a daily basis. To deny that is absurd.

If I said I enjoyed raping women, molesting children, and killing men, wouldn't you judge me?

Stop pretending everything is fine as long as it doesn't personally affect you.

That's nonsense, unless you want to live in an uncivilized society.

[EliSnow]

Oh yeah, how's that working for you? It's like Fez the other day trying to argue the computer "thinking" like a human for Jeopardy during a segment. JK

You're right it's just that
1) Gays are a part of population with no other defining trait than their sexual preference. This makes it hard for some to see them as a group in terms of civil rights. To me they are more akin to an interest group like the NRA.
2) Also marriage as it stand is a church thing, what people do in a courtroom is civil union but in my opinion this also applies to straight couples.

Not accurate. As is stands in the US, any marriage regardless where performed requires a state license. If your church marries you and you have no license, you're not married in the eyes of the government.

[Stalker Patti]

This is most likely the most overused cop-out line ever.

"I don't judge" or "Who am I to judge?"

We ALL judge, on a daily basis. To deny that is absurd.

If I said I enjoyed raping women, molesting children, and killing men, wouldn't you judge me?

Stop pretending everything is fine as long as it doesn't personally affect you.

That's nonsense, unless you want to live in an uncivilized society.

We are talking about "marriage", not breaking the Law or causing injury to someone.

[lleeder]

Fag lover.

Language like that is wrong.























Its Fag-Hag. Hag not lover

[Gvac]

We are talking about "marriage", not breaking the Law or causing injury to someone.

So the only time you don't judge is when it comes to marriage?

[Charlie_Don't_Surf]

Not accurate. As is stands in the US, any marriage regardless where performed requires a state license. If your church marries you and you have no license, you're not married in the eyes of the government.

I meant the use of the term marriage as a sacrament and I clearly said "in my opinion this also applies to straight couples"

I say give them the same rights call it civil union, the argument over semantics is just plain annoying to me though.

[Stalker Patti]

So the only time you don't judge is when it comes to marriage?

I detect a hint of sarcasm here. I already said what my opinion was, and you are free to express yours, which you've already done. I peacefully rest my case, and I suggest you put yours to rest as well.:bye:

[EliSnow]

The church may call marriage a sacrament but that's not how the government defines it. And that's what this debate is all about. Marriage hasn't been solely a religious union for a long long time.

And if it's just a semantics issue, then what's the problem with calling gay unions a marriage? Obviously the term is important or those who oppose gay marriage wouldn't care.

[Crispy123]

I detect a hint of sarcasm here. I already said what my opinion was, and you are free to express yours, which you've already done. I peacefully rest my case, and I suggest you put yours to rest as well.:bye:

Oh snap!!! She broke off a piece in yo ass!!!

[Gvac]

I detect a hint of sarcasm here. I already said what my opinion was, and you are free to express yours, which you've already done. I peacefully rest my case, and I suggest you put yours to rest as well.:bye:

You know you want me.