Yeah, OK, but everybody already knows that guy’s an asshole.
So, you have the right to get married, and the government may neither stop you from getting married, nor give out financial benefits for marriage?
You’d better run down to the IRS and Social Security offices and get them straightened out on that latter point…
I been away, doing other stuff. But I want to get a bit confrontational here and holler “bullshit”.
There’s nothing in this ummm thing that imposes on any of your “religious rights”. Nothing telling you what church to to go or not go to. Nothing telling you what to believe or not believe. Nothing telling you you have to officiate at a gay marraige or be in a gay marriage. There’s nothing impeding your right to do or not do anything at all.
So, Bull Shit.
It’s all about WHO is being discriminated against. If it’s you, then everything is fine. If it’s me, then it’s bad.
Did I pass the test?
I believe FriarTed might be referring to laws regarding public accomidations. I guess he’s making a parallel between certain religious groups and those poor, poor racist restaurant owners who were forced to serve black people that came in to eat.
Bless his heart.
OK, it’s a variation of the old “I have nothing aginst ni**ers so long as they stay on their side of the tracks” argument.
Got it.
Depends on which religion, or sect, or subsect, you’re talking about, don’t it? You may or may not be aware of the existence of a number of religious faiths, even Christian ones (!), who actually support equal rights, in accordance with Jesus’ commandment that we all love our neighbors as ourselves. Following Christ won’t take a beating, but using religion as a pretext for hatred certainly will. And that is perhaps as Christ would want it, hmm?
Didn’t Jesus also say that God was the only one who got to judge people? It seems to me that judging someone (and denying them rights) for being a homosexual is not too Christian either.
And every one knows Jesus was queer right? He even had a male hareem (or disciples as they are more commonly known). And have you seen his hair! So gay.
Seriously, gay marriage doesn’t hurt straight people. Why the hell would you be against other people getting something that makes them happy when it has no impact on you whatsoever? That’s just being mean.
Excellent post.
Because if marriage includes people of the SS, the bigots, er ‘reasonable definitionarians’ will be unable to distinguish male from female. I believe it will effect their vision somehow.
Then cats will marry dogs and the whole world will come unglued.
I have a general question about SSM, which I support as an civil right that is currently being denied to gay couples.
Just out of idle curiouslty, how do SS married couples refer to their spouse?
Are both men husbands? Both women wife? Is it the non gender term partner?
This is what I’ve been hearing. I think they would naturally prefer not to use “partner” for a spouse, since that’s the term they had to resort to faut de mieux before SSM.
This is pretty much my take on the SSM issue and the abortion issue. Choose for yourself and allow others the same privilage knowing that according to your faith, God will judge. People justify it by claiming it’s just the beginning of laws that will legalize moral depravity. It’s ridiculous and completely unjustified by any evidence at all.
In my state, where we’ve had it in place for over five years (and without the sky falling or straight marriages being perceptibly debased either), it’s become commonplace to refer to a man’s husband or a woman’s wife. But the couple’s own preference probably ought to take precedence.
The supporters of the gay marriage ban really made clear their intellectual bankruptcy in the argument they made before the federal appeals court today:
That anyone could even make this argument with a straight face is unbelievable to me. It continues the same type of ridiculous, zero-sum beliefs as so many other anti-gay-marriage arguments. The idea that letting gays marry somehow reduces the significance of straight marriage, or reduces the likelihood of “procreative sexual relationships,” is completely preposterous.
Yeah, it has all the coherence and plausibility of a stoned high schooler’s ad-libbed oral report on what he forgot was finals day. And they had *months *to come up with something, which is… just sad.
Meh, that analogy assumes that there is in fact a food oral report to be done, given the right preparation and research. I would say this more like spending months planning an assault on Troy, except you don’t have any wooden ships or soldiers or armaments of any kind, so you throw rocks you find lying on the ground.
I am not sure what you are talking about, because I suspect neither do you.
In what way does pointing out that marriage is a public act, in the sense that there are things like marriage licenses and so on, imply that there is no distinction between the state, and society?
Regards,
Shodan
The opposition to SSM has always had the strong “headed for the dustbin of history” stink on it, like arguments against interracial marriage and such, as I’m sure I’m not the first to point out. But man, can’t even the people still against SSM smell the funk rising off statements like that? Aren’t they asking each other, “what’s that dust-binny smell?”
Has there been even one documented example of person who said something like “I was going to ignore my gay feelings and get married to a woman and have a stable family life raising kids, but then I heard that same-sex marriage was going to be legal! I mentally aborted that hypothetical genius savior child, and now I’m living in the Village!”