So, essentally, your argument against gay marriage is, “We’ve always done it this way, and a majority like it this way, so why rock the boat,” yes?
Wow.
That whirrling sound you hear is Martin Luther King Jr. spinning in his grave…
While I’m not ready to condemn Brutus to being a bigot (at least, not solely on his post in this thread) I’m very curious as to why, if he’s an atheist, he’s opposed to gay marriage.
Brutus, why are you opposed to allowing gay couples to marry? Are you also opposed to gay couples entering into legal, civil unions?
It clears things up. But not in the way you think. It clears up your motivations. It’s the same when you use your battle cry of “strict constructionalism” as a fig leaf to cover the fact that you don’t really want gay people to have equal rights. If you did the “Bricker Amendment” would be similar to the 15th or 19th in that they protect the rights of an oppressed group rather than as a loophole through the priciples of Liberty and Justice for All.
If clarification was what you really sought your first question would have been a clear question distinguishing between the two ideas. Instead you were condescendingly trying to lay a semantic trap for the OP so you could spring your bullshit argument. You knew from the OP what the rant was about and you tried to change the topic so you could defend your position without showing your anti-gay attitude.
When you continually come to the defense of anti-gay bigots you can’t expect to not appear one yourself. It doesn’t matter that you try to present your arguments as a principled “strict constructionalist” stand. The effect is bigotted laws and you’re okay with that. It’s asinine to imply that I’m intolerant because I fight for the rights I deserve under the Constitution.
Piss off.
why again? So your Cop Rock bully ass can feel superior to the queers? I guess you need to feel superior to something, since you are so nothing.
Hey, dumbass, Jesus didn’t invent marriage, it had been around THOUSANDS of years before that. And you know what, they had MULTIPLE WIVES, so i guess you support bigamy now. Good Job! And who made you King Dictionary, anyway?
Fuck popular input on civil rights. popular input put blacks on the back of the bus, not that your bigoted ass cares about anyone non-white.
if the board was creaking along now, i’d dig up the anti war thread where he basically said blacks should never have marched for civil rights and stayed home.
Oh it fucking well is not, at least not all the time, and you goddamn well know it. You know it. You’ve cited the case law time and time again. Loving. Zablocki, Turner. Again and again your own fucking cites show up the lie that “marriage is an issue for the states to decide.” You know as well as anyone and better than most that states don’t always get to decide things, when the decisions the state makes run afoul of the Constitution.
“Oh, but Loving was different because it was about race, something important, something that matters,” is your standard response. Well golly Rick, there are those among us who think that discriminating on the basis of sex and sexual orientation is pretty darn bad too, and shouldn’t be excused or dismissed because the states have generally decided to do it. The exact same reasons why the Court struck down the anti-marriage laws in Loving and Zablocki and Turner are the reasons why SSM is a federal matter and the exact same reasons why the states should not have the power to restrict SSM.
Take a pill ass-munch.
Marriage is ultimately doomed anyway. Heterosexuals started its demise (sexual freedom) and homosexuals will complete its obliteration.
The final collapse of marriage is its permanent conclusive separation from reproduction. So go ahead and finish destroying it.
-IS
Actually, it really hasn’t. Only within the last 100 years has the Court really put Federally mandated rights above those of State rights.
Examples before that include Hurtado v. California (1884), in which it turns out that the right to impeachment by a grand jury didn’t really apply against states, Palko v. Connecticut, in which we learn that double jeopardy doesn’t apply when the State is prosecuting, and a host of others.
Read up on Selective Incorporation.
That said, I agree with every word of the OP. Fucking fundies.
Sounds good to me, as long as you also recognize that the same argument can be used against a federally-required recognition of what constitutes a “marriage”, as Bush is proposing.
Riiiiiight. Because no one ever meets another person that, on coming to know and love, they decide they want to spend the rest of their life with. Marriage is only ever about bumping uglies and making babies. It’s never about companionship, love, or that other romantic bullshit
You know, if there’s anyone the idea of marriage needs to be protected from, it’s idjits like these, who want to boil the whole thing down to reproduction and nothing but reproduction.
All right, gang, we’ve got permission. Let’s tear this mother down!
Newsflash, bright boy: Marriage is not about reproduction, reproduction, reproduction. Marriage is a contract between two people involving shared property and shared responsibilities (in the legal sense). It’s also a way for two people who love each other to make their commitment to each other official (in the personal sense). It’s also a convenient setup for raising children (in the biological sense). You can have that, all of that, without reproduction. Just because you personally define marriage as being totally inseparable from reproduction doesn’t make it so. So fuck right off.
LOL
" :mad: arrrgggghhhhh!!! :mad: "
Wait, so infertile couples will destroy marriage?
If this analogy were to hold, it would mean that he regularly exchanges his wife for goods and services (and vice versa, recieving the wives of others), and worries that if he recieves a homosexual spouse as part of business transaction, then he has not recieved full, fair value.
The problem with this argument is that while a counterfeit bill is worthless to everyone who recognizes it for what it is, there are many who would find a homosexual spouse not just equally valuable, but even more valuable than a heterosexual one. It therefore makes more sense to think of these spouses as foreign currency, which may be saved for later when you go on holiday to Homoslavia.
Brian: “Do you actually listen to the things you say?”
Peter: “I drift in and out.”
Hell, no! I don’t want gay marriages legalized, destroying the institution of marriage! I have enough trouble getting along with my wife as it is! :mad:
Wow…why doesn’t everybody state how they REALLY feel?
That being said, I agree with the OP. I really resent people pushing their so-called morality down my throat.
I find nothing wrong with SSM. Why shouldn’t those couples have the same rights as hetero married couples? I am referring to civil unions that SHOULD be recognized by the state and/or federal government.
I can’t really speak for marriages recognized by whatever church, as I am not religious. However, the idea that these couples MAY want to get married in the church seems to rile folks up. Fine, let’s approach that idea slowly.
In the meantime, civil unions between homosexual couples would afford them the same protections and rights that hetero couples have. I mean the SAME rights, that is all. I don’t think they are asking for SPECIAL rights. Why should a life partner lose everything when his/her partner dies? What happens if a life partner is brain dead, but on life support? The life partner doesn’t have the right to make the ultimate decision. What happens if life saving surgery is required, again the partern doesn’t have the right to make that decision.
I frankly don’t understand their lifestyle, but it certainly isn’t HARMING or threatening me, my husband, or children. It isn’t harming anyone and is certainly no threat to the institution of marriage.
Hey, slavery was a great old institution that lasted for thousands of years and was supported for a while by many old laws. If we are going to regress toward intolerance and bigotry, we might as well bring back slavery. I’m kind of tired doing my household chores these days. I know I would have way more energy whipping some poor villiager from Iraq (our new imperial conquest) into doing stuff for me.
How about it?
Not to worry. After gays destroy the institution of marriage, you won’t be married to your wife anymore anyways.
If I had been drinking anything, you would owe me a new monitor. I just sat here and laughed my butt off for like three minutes straight. Homoslavia, indeed. Freaking hilarious. I love you now.
In fairness, I think Bob Goldthwait came up with that name first. IIRC, it was in response to Axel Rose screaming “immigrants and queers go back where you came from.”