  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
User login
Get Email Alerts!
Recent comments
- fk
Very funny!!!
Sad the
15 hours 7 min ago - Hey, how about we get rid of
16 hours 51 min ago - Love it retweeted, & shared.
17 hours 21 min ago - I hadn't even heard about
17 hours 45 min ago - Just in time for all you
20 hours 47 min ago - What I meant by the first
1 day 23 min ago - Of course, the rich are
1 day 2 hours ago - So, you shouldn't divide
1 day 16 hours ago - Horsecrap. The market moves
1 day 21 hours ago - Those tax hikes we had in
2 days 1 hour ago
Sponsored ad
News
- No sign of oil spill after Gulf platform fire
- Afghans Pull Money From Weakened Bank
- Officials Assess Damage From Blast in Gulf of Mexico
- Burger King sets sights overseas after $3.26B sale
- Hurricane Earl Nears Atlantic Coast
- Earl threatens East Coast with weekend pounding
- Line Umpires’ Job Is to See but Not Be Seen
Do Something!
Comments
LOL! That was wonderful! I
LOL! That was wonderful! I got them all right! I expect that prize SOON!
Hope to see another episode of Whose Marriage is it!
The redefining didn't start
The redefining didn't start with marriage... It started with homosexuality itself. The greatest concession of all was when academics abandoned the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. It clearly is. In order not to see it you have to make the argument that there is no such thing as normal or natural and therefore nothing can be unnatural or abnormal. Don't give me gay dolphins and bonobos monkeys. Gays are highly functioning and they make money so they get to spend their money on lobbyists and push their agenda like everyone else... Thats fine, thats a right they actually DO have. OK by me. Go be free. With all tolerance and affection. But it stops here. This far. No further. You can call yourself married and you can call yourself sane. You can dress up in feathers and call yourself a pinata. You'll have no trouble with me. But my tolerance ends when my son comes home and tells me that he was just taught something that subverts my own authority to teach him right and wrong. The elephant in the room is this: Your all nuts. We like you, you do great work, we don't mind having you around... but we all secretly think your nuts. Thats why your bills keep going down in flames. (no pun intended)
Thats the difference between this and the civil rights movement. There was a time when some people mistakenly believed certain races to be inferior. But even the most bigoted racists of that time didn't think of blacks as being insane or unnatural. Culturally, our beliefs where the same, so it was only a matter of time before they were included. This is different.
"there is no such thing as
"there is no such thing as normal or natural and therefore nothing can be unnatural or abnormal. Don't give me gay dolphins and bonobos monkeys."
Ok, can I give you gay penguin and Arctic fouls instead? Wether you want to see it or not, homosexuality in the wild is quite common. But this does not mater does it? We are certainly ABOVE animals right? Maybe? humm.
"But my tolerance ends when my son comes home and tells me that he was just taught something that subverts my own authority to teach him right and wrong."
This is the benift and/or cost of not living a hermit lifesyle. Being part of a society will influence our ofspring wether we like it or not. Believe me, his morality training will not end in the house or in the school. Carefully dissemble the memories of your own childhood.
"Thats why your bills keep going down in flames."
Maybe it's more complex then that. Not much is getting through Washington they days anyway. Seems like the political system is less dynamically adaptable then the people it represents.
"even the most bigoted racists of that time didn't think of blacks as being insane or unnatural."
Maybe not. But they certainly had no place with God or in white churches!
Yet that perspective changed.
I'm a big fan of separation
I'm a big fan of separation of church and state. Keeping religion out of government is part of what makes this civilization so good to live in. On the same rule the government should stay out of dictating what defines a religious institution (marriage).
I support the establishment of civil unions that are equal in the eyes of the law to marriage for same-sex couples. If there are religions that want to sanctify same-sex couples that is fine for them to do, but it must not be forced on anyone.
So here it is. I am tolerant of same sex unions. I support the right of people to live that lifestyle and have the same legal rights of traditional couples. But, I will never accept a same sex union as equivalent to a traditional marriage no matter what anyone says or what laws are passed. I defy this redefinition and you’re all just going to have to deal with that.
>I'm a big fan of separation
>I'm a big fan of separation of church and state. Keeping religion out of government is part of what makes this civilization so good to live in.
So far I agree.
>On the same rule the government should stay out of dictating what defines a religious institution (marriage).
Sure. FOR BOTH STRAIGHT AND GAY COUPLES.
>I support the establishment of civil unions that are equal in the eyes of the law to marriage for same-sex couples.
Well, that's lovely. Are you going to say the same for male/female couples who get married by a sea captain or a justice of the peace or another person that THE LAW says can marry people? DO they get a civil unon too? Because that's only fair under your idea of separation of church and state.
>If there are religions that want to sanctify same-sex couples that is fine for them to do, but it must not be forced on anyone.
Fine, then THOSE couples are married. What about civil benefits? Right now, straight couples who CHOOSE a religious ceremony still have to get registered by the state in which they live. That union is then accepted by the federal government. In fact, NO religious official can consecrate a religious marriage until the legal paperwork is COMPLETED. The religous leader has a double role, religous and civil.
There are 1000s of civil rights and benefits that are related to marriage, including inheritance, adoption, automatic power of attorney, tax benefits, right to not testify against a spouse in court, etc. as well as intangible social benefits.
>But, I will never accept a same sex union as equivalent to a traditional marriage no matter what anyone says or what laws are passed. I defy this redefinition and you’re all just going to have to deal with that.
You are one person. And you get to dictate and defy whether one person of age and legal standing can get married to another person of age and legal standing? Funny... people said the same exact thing about IR couples, including Mr. and Mrs. Loving. I don't care if you accept that or not. You do not have that power over other people, and neither should the government that supports that "seperation of church and state" that you claim to care so much about.
Marriage was once defined as a man owning his wife and all her property. That's what dowries were for. That's why women could not own property in thier own name, let alone voting and inheritance rights.
Our society's definition of marriage has evolved. Why can't you?
> NO religious official can
> NO religious official can consecrate a religious marriage until the legal paperwork is COMPLETED. The religous leader has a double role, religous and civil
That is where the problem is. Should the state pass legislation that same sex marriage is the law than to perform the service in official capacity the pastor (or equivalent) may not discriminate based on sexual orientation. If the tenants of the religion forbid same sex unions then the law is forcing a moral conflict between the civic and spiritual life. The point I’m trying to make is that if any given religious order rejects the spiritual validity of same sex marriage, then no law should attempt to compel that from anyone who follows that faith.
>DO they get a civil unon too?
Yes. In the eyes of the law a marriage is a binding contract. If you are officiated over by a secular justice of the peace it is the same contract.
> What about civil benefits?
Again, the contract is the same.
> You are one person.
Everyone who has anything to say on this topic is just one person including you. Neither of us is alone either. Right now the pro-same-sex group is more mobilized.
> Marriage was once defined as a man owning his wife and all her property.
The institution is much older than the Romans, Greeks, or the Sumerians. The legal code does not define the spirit of what the relationship was intended to be. The old ways also considered love to be the product of a successful union. You don’t get love between people if one of them is a brute.
> Our society's definition of marriage has evolved. Why can't you?
The term evolution is misapplied. It would be more accurate to say that the institution has eroded. The suggestion that I have resisted change is also groundless. Please re-read my original post again slower and with greater objectivity. Let pass the temptation to quibble over small points of grammar and find the spirit of the position. I (and those like me) ARE willing to accept a secular civil union for same sex couples so they can have the same rights as traditional couples. That is a serious concession, and a very generous and compassionate one, from the people (like me) who do not approve but are willing to tolerate this.
Have you even considered accepting a compromise? Obstinate insistence on marriage-or-nothing is only going to generate more resistance to the idea.
> Should the state pass
> Should the state pass legislation that same sex marriage is the law than to perform the service in official capacity the pastor (or equivalent) may not discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Nope - sorry. Thanks for playing - please try again next time. There ARE religious exemptions in the places where gay marriage is legal.
Heck - even if I were straight there are certainly many religious institutions that would not allow me to marry in their building or with their clergy unless I converted, submitted to pre-marriage counseling, had never been divorced, etc. So no one is compelled to marry anyone now - why would it be any different after same-sex marriage?
>I (and those like me) ARE willing to accept a secular civil union for same sex couples so they can have the same rights as traditional couples. That is a serious concession, and a very generous and compassionate one, from the people (like me) who do not approve but are willing to tolerate this.
Let me show you how crazy this sounds in another context:
"I (and those like me) ARE willing to accept separate but equal schooling for African-Americans so they can have the same rights as white people. This is a serious concession, and a very generous and compassionate one from the people (like me) who do not approve but are willing to tolerate this."
There were people then that thought that desegregating schools was "eroding" societal values and norms. They were on the wrong side of history too.
~ Nope - sorry. Thanks for
~ Nope - sorry. Thanks for playing - please try again next time.
Is tampering with marrige a game to you? Such exuberance in that statement - are you even old enough to vote?
~ There ARE religious exemptions in the places where gay marriage is legal.
That is a relief to know.
~ Let me show you how crazy this sounds in another context
Don't give me that racism strawman crap. Same sex unions are not the civil rights movement. Passing a law cannot create legitimacy for same sex marrige. You cannot borrow or steal legitimacy from the civil rights movment for this either. This propositiion must stand on its own merits.
You seem to be a history buff too. Have you read the wiki write up on same sex marrige? It seems that this issue has been around since antiquity. Looks like the ancients had the same solution that is on the table now - civil union (at least where it was tolerated at all).
I have seen the heartbreaking stories on the news that deal with rights of access, inheritance, children seperated from care givers and the more. I hope for all the same sex couples that they do get a civil union law.
It does stand on its own
It does stand on its own merits, except to homophobic paranoiacs like yourself. Marriage is not yours to define; the sooner you accept it, the sooner you can get your soul back.
I'm relieved there are no
I'm relieved there are no homophobics here. The real ones have no sympathy for the suffering of anyone GLBT.
That is a strong insult - homophobic. It was coined for the gay community as an alternative way to call someone a deviant. Try thowing the orginal sometime and see how it sticks?
How about making a new word for gay marrige and side step this problem? A unique addition to the dialect for that sub-culture? It could be something like "homomarrige". That might work with a little refinement. Then when the time is right you can get down on bended knee and ask your partner if he will homomarry you. It will be your word for your union that will show the world how you have evolved beyond the old fasion way mom and dad did it.
Then you can leave traditional marrige alone. It is not for you.
+10 My vote is for 'civil
+10
My vote is for 'civil homomatrimonial vows'.
They can update it to 'civil polymechahomobestiomatrimonial vows' in 2027 when the LGBTQMBPNIZAI civil rights groups ram the next wave of freedom down our throats.
If it's not for one, it's
If it's not for one, it's not for all... or does equality under the law mean nothing to you? Obviously not, which means this isn't the country for you, because the Founding Fathers believed in it enough to fight for it and enshrine it.
Compromise one's rights? Who
Compromise one's rights? Who are you to ask people to relegate themselves to second-class citizen status? No one, sir, that's who you are.
~ Compromise one's rights?
~ Compromise one's rights? Who are you to ask people to relegate themselves to second-class citizen status?
Where does this second class citizen business come from? Do you see any Jim Crow laws on the books for homosexuals? That is a thing of the past. The bill of rights applies equally to homosexuals. It does not however guarantee the right of same sex unions but we can be tolerant.
~ No one, sir, that's who you are.
Please don’t bore me with childish insults? I don't agree with your self-serving desires and think you are wrong to meddle with the institution of marriage. What’s more I don’t buy the over-generalized arguments that same sex unions have to be marriage or it will somehow be diminished in legal effect. Even if this insanity did make it into national law it will not magically cause same sex unions to become any more respectable or accepted than they currently are (re-read that before going into a conniption); there are no more rights to be gained in marriage than the civil union option offers. The rights and legal entitlements would be the same, apply the symbol marriage or civil union to the court letterhead; the procedures of law work the same either way. Even a self-centered demagogue such as yourself could reason that much if you made an effort. But is this really about the rights of marriage? This is what I think – the rights are not really what are at issue. The people who are demanding same sex marriage want that legal distinction to force acceptance back on the religious community by using the arm of the state to coerce compliance with discrimination laws. (My original post again – separation of church and state works both ways). You don’t like it that so many people believes the homosexual lifestyle is anything less than normal and mainstream. The law can force everyone to think the way you want them to? Did the law ever have that effect on you?
The more I listen to the anger coming from your camp the more I’m convinced we need a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a civil union between one man and one woman. And before you blow your little top again, we can leave the door open for same sex unions too so the fringe can have equal protection. That is the ethical and compassionate thing to do. But a same sex union will never be marriage; the law cannot possibly change that. If you still doubt it then consider the story of Antigone from mythology.
Until your wife is barred
Until your wife is barred from your bedside while you're dying, it will never be equal. Chew on that.
and another thing: if God
and another thing: if God would have wanted the races to marry, He wouldn't have made continents! and, there is nothing wrong with good-old-fashioned segregation! indeed, "Separate But Equal" !!! it was good enough for George Wallace, it's good enough for us! Go KKK! all the way! and hopefully, the mormons can fight to get the Blacks "back" out of their churches... just like it was b4 the 1970's when the living mormon prophet had a revelation: "it is now time for us to allow Blacks into our churches and temples." and i do declare it had NOTHING to do with the Federal Government threatening to take away their tax exempt status! it was only their living prophet's sudden vision from God, Himself! LMAO! so, when will the mormons have time to wage their next war on society? who will be next? is it you they will direct their fierce and mighty sword toward? enjoy! LMAO!
srsly?
srsly?
Comments like the one above
Comments like the one above should not have been posted.
Tin Foil Hat for that post.
Tin Foil Hat for that post.
Spectacular. One of the
Spectacular. One of the best yet. Keep it up, please!!!
Brilliant. How do you think
Brilliant. How do you think of these things? Thanks also to Gary Kleppe for "translating". Alas, those who don't understand, won't - no matter how you much you pre-masticate and pre-digest it for them.
This was really stupid..
This was really stupid.. what was your point Mark?
for one thing it was to show
for one thing it was to show that some of the arguments against gay marriage have been used for other reasons and shot down in the past.
Nice job! This is one of
Nice job! This is one of the good ones.
This is absolutely
This is absolutely brilliant.
So, to summarize your
So, to summarize your position:
Ah well, at least you're not deluding yourself. That earns you a bonus round. :P
Take care. Thanks for the toon.
- COTO
Debating is easy when you
Debating is easy when you get to make up the other side's positions for them.
So let's rewrite your points so that they actually make some sense:
1. There are plenty of serious threats to the institution of heterosexual marriage. Gay marriage isn't one of them.
2. Many hetero couples can't conceive without special help, and some can't at all. Marriage isn't (only) about procreation.
3. Fifty years ago, the same arguments that are used against same-gender marriage now were used against inter-racial marriage. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.
How about a second
How about a second revision?
Mr. Fiore is declaring either that i) men are no different from women, ii) the differences don't matter, or iii) the differences do matter, but who cares because there are balls-out lousy heterosexual parents too; we might as well use them as the standard.
Furthermore, neither of the states mentioned in the preamble (New York and New Jersey) ever passed anti-miscegenation laws.
Mr. Fiore made up his own positions.
I suppose I can appreciate his editorial tact for not dancing around the issues.
1. Exactly how? As you see,
1. Exactly how? As you see, straight couples in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Canada, and The Netherlands have stopped getting married and in fact their societies are collapsing because gay marriages have threatened their relationships.
2. A marriage is a civil contract that involves far more situations than the nuclear family. Procreation isn't essential to it. If you keep insisting it is, be consistent and ban childless marriages.
3. If you're going to use a slippery slope argument, incest would be more threatening, no? What part of "consenting adult" that is the commonality in both interracial and same sex marriages has you confused?
"As you see, straight
"As you see, straight couples in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Canada, and The Netherlands have stopped getting married and in fact their societies are collapsing because gay marriages have threatened their relationships."
Sorry how are these societies collapsing? Last time I checked, Canada was rated as one of the best Countries to live in by the United Nations.
http://travel.latimes.com/daily-deal-blog/index.php/un-picks-best-and-wo...
I've lived downtown Toronto, and gay couples are nearly as common as straight ones, yet life goes on!
I also live in downtown
I also live in downtown Toronto. And I agree, the androgynous agenda (elements of which have been exhaustively documented in the 'Quasi-Marriage' forum) is inescapable. Gay parades every third week; pro-LGBT curricula in preschool and grade school; sue-happy LGBT 'human rights' courts; rampant censorship; 'tolerance and equality' belief-check disclosure forms for any public positions, and on... and on.
The 'slippery slope' argument has sharp, nasty teeth.
Speaking as to our prosperity, sir/madam may consider that, like the United States, we are one of the most industrious peoples on Earth, blessed with one of the greatest abundances of natural resources on Earth. Unlike the US, however, we aren't currently spending 2/3 of our wealth bombing Iraqi dustbowls back into the stone age.
Demographically speaking, we're worse off than the US and only slightly better than Europe. Net 1.45 children per couple. If it falls another few points, we'll have decimated (literally) our native-born population by 2100. That's the long end of the collapsing society argument.
Yes we have extremely low
Yes we have extremely low native population birth rates. However, our population is quite stable. This is due to a very heavy reliance on immigration numbers to fill the gap. This is going to drastically change the look of the country in the long term. Yet we are not alone in industrious countries to share this in these abysmally low numbers.
So far, this has worked to our advantage. Yet If one extrapolates a super long term perspective, where industrial countries are in the majority and birth rates are low around the world (this is far from reality at present), then the Canadian model is ultimately doomed.
I wonder how government policy could be created to tackle low birth rates. Honestly, this is a very optimistic global perspective and so far in the future that a multitude of developments could recast the demographic delema.
> I wonder how government
> I wonder how government policy could be created to tackle low birth rates.
It can't. That's the whole point.
You will lose eventually
You will lose eventually because you cannot show that gay marriage is a threat to anyone. Just saying so will not get you far in a court of law.
You are also suggesting that the legalization of same sex marriage will inevitably lead to the legalization of pedophelia, state sanctioned "intergenerational sex" was practiced by heterosexuals in this culture until very recently, historically. The age of consent is one of many ways that the definition of marriage has evolved with the standards of a more enlightened culture over the decades. There is no relationship to this issue and same sex marriage, the difference is the harm caused to people that we now define as children, harm that is verified by society's experts in the medical and psychological fields. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality is now accepted as healthy, normal and harmful to no one by every reputable medical and psychological association.
Reproduction is not a criteria for marriage, a two parent, opposite sex household is not a criteria for rearing children in a loving environment. However, it is very easy to prove that marriage rights are a benefit to the children of same sex couples. Conservatives have already lost their battle of preventing same sex couples from having children.
> Homosexuality, like
> Homosexuality, like heterosexuality is now accepted as healthy, normal and harmful to no one by every reputable medical and psychological association.
The grand irony being that any medical institution that rejects the conclusion is no longer considered to be a 'reputable medical association'.
However, let's assume that medical institute X has freely decided to endorse homosexuality (i.e. X wasn't 'persuaded' by the threat of being ostracized or sued out of existence).
Even in these conditions, what else would you expect?
Psychologists are interested in minimizing stress. They aren't interested in the long-term socioeconomic aspects, the moral aspects, the demographic aspects, or any of the long-term societal effects. Moreover, scientific studies with 50-, 100-, and 150- year timescales assessing the 'impacts' of homosexuality have never been performed. They surely never will be. Any medical professional or scientist proposing to study the "long-term degenerative impacts of homosexual behaviour on society" would be crucified by a university ethics board.
Hence, medical institute X can happily sign on to the results of a six-month study that indicates stress levels are lower in homosexuals who are 'happy to be homosexual' than in homosexuals who are not. Gee, whod've thunk?
And if we were instead considering cold, painful reality, then medical institute X is going to endorse that study (and be happy about doing it) lest they fall prey to the 'disreputable association' stigma.
> a two parent, opposite sex household is not a criteria for rearing children in a loving environment
My point all along has been--and will continue to be--that a 'loving environment' is not sufficient for child rearing.
> Conservatives have already lost their battle of preventing same sex couples from having children.
So we should all give up and die?
Your comments about 'state sanctioned "intergenerational sex"' are complete bunk and don't even warrant a reply.
As for the rest, I've gone over these points ad nauseum in the 'Quasi Marriage' forum. Look them up if you have any genuine interest in my counterargument.
I don't know about "state
I don't know about "state Sanctioned inter-generational sex" but inter-generational sex used to be the norm rather than the exception.
"Whose Marriage Is It?" is
"Whose Marriage Is It?" is up and running. Did you win the grand prize?
-MF
Post new comment