Gays Have A Great Same-Sex Marriage Solution [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 7 years ago in

We"re pretty sure this idea would work if it would pass.
There are 156 comments:
Male 96
I clap for Musuko.
0
Reply
Female 50
Deal. Sweet, two birds with one stone! I call this a triumph.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
By the way, CrakrJak; you can just give up throwing out examples of gay relationships that don`t last.

For every one you cite, we can give you a hundred examples back of failed straight relationships.

"The average civil union for gays and lesbians lasts 2 years."

And where are you getting these figures?

It`s pretty pointless arguing that us gay people (who are trying so desperately for the right to marry our loved-ones...you`d think we want it for a better reason than just to piss off you fundies. You know...for love maybe?) aren`t able to handle the commitment of marriage, when you straight people seem just as hopeless at it.

Personal question, CrakrJak; are you married?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak.

Also, the very link you posted to refute my point actually confirms it.

Within, it cites a study that revealed:

"It predicted that one-third of new marriages among younger people will end in divorce within 10 years and 43 percent within 15 years."

So 43% of marriages fail within 15 years. And you find it unlikely that half of all marriages will fail? That 43% isn`t counting the marriages that fail AFTER 15 years.

You really aren`t very good at this, are you?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak.

"Life isn`t fair, Get over it."

What`s your ethnic makeup, CrakrJak? Should I demanding you get back to the cotton fields? Slavery isn`t fair either, after all.

"You`ve made your choices and you knew the consequences."

Again, you show yourself to be coming unarmed to a battle of wits. Two points.

1: it`s not a choice.
2: even if it was, that isn`t a reason to disallow it. You chose to be a Christian, after all; and you`d not be happy about Christianity being banned because it`s a "lifestyle choice" would you?

Also, why does it bother you so much CrakrJak? Again...I really suspect you`re getting too many hardons looking at guys, and can`t handle it.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman period, That is the way it has always been."

Twenty seconds and a quick google search finds me information about same-sex marriages in ancient China and early Rome. I`m also vaguely aware of the custom of the "third gender" in ancient India.

You`re simply wrong.

"The divorce rate in 2005 (per 1,000 people) was 3.6 -- the lowest rate since 1970, and down from 4.2 in 2000 and from 4.7 in 1990. That 50% figure you quote is not accurate at all it is Fiction "

That sounds like 3.6% PER YEAR. The 50% rate refers to the fact that half of all marriages will end in a divorce at some point. YOUR figure measures the percentage of married couples that divorce each year.

If you can`t tell the difference, then you`re operating on a mental level far below the minimum required to debate this issue.
0
Reply
Male 621
CrakrJak - I only read your last post, and that`s enough for me. Its people like you that made this whole coming out experience traumatic. You should be ashamed of yourself and your backwards ways.
0
Reply
Male 235
I actually agree with this sticker, gays shouldn`t marry, and people shouldn`t divorce. Who would have though that part of family life could be fixed with a bumper sticker?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Musuko42: Marriage is between a man and a woman period, That is the way it has always been. The average civil union for gays and lesbians lasts 2 years. The first women that won their case in Massachusetts to get married have already divorced.

The divorce rate in 2005 (per 1,000 people) was 3.6 -- the lowest rate since 1970, and down from 4.2 in 2000 and from 4.7 in 1990. That 50% figure you quote is not accurate at all it is Fiction

Life isn`t fair, Get over it. You`ve made your choices and you knew the consequences. I don`t care if you wanted to be a firefighter, soldier, engineer, or whatever if you lack the ability to do those things because you made bad choices then it`s your fault, Not the rest of the world.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@CrakrJak
One`s sexual orientation is not effected by genes but by siblings. Specifically the youngest male one is most likely to be homosexual.
source
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

In any case, if you say sexuality is a choice, then YOU should not be allowed to marry either.

Because if YOU chose to be straight, then you have no more right to marry than someone who chose to be gay.

Because if OUR choice is to be refused, then why not yours?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"Face it, You`ve lost the argument."

You forget the important maxim: lack of evidence does not mean evidence of a lack.

You should know that. You fundies use it yourself as defence of god existing.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
"What I care about is the word `marriage` and not letting it get hijacked by people that don`t give a frog`s fat ass about actually honoring the word"

Oh good, we`re agreed then.

ATTENTION EVERYONE! CRAKRJAK AND I BOTH BELIEVE THAT STRAIGHT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY, AS THE MAJORITY OF STRAIGHT DO NOT HONOUR IT!

You know, with the whole 50%+ divorce rate.
0
Reply
Male 111
@CrakrJak-
FYI, the practice of marriage predates Christianity by several thousand years.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Musuko42: Ok Fine, Don`t believe me believe the science. BBC WND NARTH

Insults are the last refuge of the ignorant and cowardly. Face it, You`ve lost the argument.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
k8giggles: [quote]But back to marriage being a Christian institution. How do you feel when heterosexual Jews get married? What about Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus? Or what about atheists who get married at city hall?[/quote]

I never said that it was a strictly Christian institution, Please don`t try and put words in my mouth. I don`t care if other religions want to get married, I don`t care if gays want `civil unions`. What I care about is the word `marriage` and not letting it get hijacked by people that don`t give a frog`s fat ass about actually honoring the word, Their intentions have been clear from the start. They want to literally shove it in Christians faces and force them to accept their alternative lifestyle choice as normal and force churches to `marry` them against the church`s beliefs. Muslims don`t try to force a synagogue to marry them, Jews don`t force Churches to marry them, Buddhists don`t try to force mosques to marry them.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak.

"There is no `gay` gene"

I didn`t know you were a highly-qualified geneticist! Wow! And to think, all this time I`d been thinking you were an over-opinionated ignorant bigot!

I would very much love to read your thesis! What is the title?

Face it, it doesn`t even MATTER if it`s a choice or not (and it`s not). Your religion is a choice, yet you wish to be free to exercise it. So to with my sexuality.

Personally, I think you`re just scared. Maybe you`ve been getting one too many hardons when Brad Pitt takes his shirt off and you`re too chicken to come to terms with what it means.

Meanwhile, the world continues to turn.
0
Reply
Male 5
That`s just a stupid sticker. FAIL.
0
Reply
Female 126
i agree with lerie
0
Reply
Female 15
(cut off from the previous post)
to remarry within the Catholic church.
0
Reply
Female 15
(continued from previous post)
Still the state performs marriages, and in the US is actually responsible for all marriages. [the whole, "By the power vested in me by the state of [blank], I now pronounce you..."] Argue if you must that the state shouldn`t be in the business of marriage at all (and only offer civil unions to hetero- and homosexual couples), but that argument would have been a lot more meaningful if those who are so interested in marriage as a religious institution had started campaigning for a removal of state "interference" prior to the movement to legalize gay marriage.

It is unconstitutional to ban an individual right to any class of people. As it stands, that right is called marriage in the law books. Semantics make a pretty poor case.

Other Christian churches could always take a page from the Catholic playbook. They only recognize marriages that have been blessed by a priest, and divorces must also be annulled if you want
0
Reply
Female 15
@CrakrJak
I don`t know the specifics of the two cases you mention. I just did a little research on the Ocean Grove case. I don`t know enough to make a judgment, but it is clear that the couple in question was not interested in performing a civil union within any of the churches, but rather on what was described as public land. It`s an odd case since the OGCMA owns the entire town. I don`t know enough about tax law and anti-discriminatory law to know who`s first amendment rights trumped in this case.

But back to marriage being a Christian institution. How do you feel when heterosexual Jews get married? What about Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus? Or what about atheists who get married at city hall?

The point is, Christians have never had a monopoly on marriage. For most of history it`s been an economical contract (though that`s harder to splice when church and state were the same thing). Still the state performs marriages, and in the US is actually responsible for all ma
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Musuko42: [quote]The world does not revolve around your pathetic little religion.[/quote]

The world has never allowed gays or lesbians to legally `marry` before, It`s not a right they`ve ever had or been taken away. Therefore they are asking for a special right based on their lifestyle choice. There is no `gay` gene, No one is `born gay` like someone is born asian, black, indian, or white. Even someone that is `born into` a creed can and do change their minds and follow other religions or become atheists, It`s a choice.

There are former gays, lesbians and bisexuals, that have also made the choice to become heterosexual again. But the gay community would rather ridicule them and make believe these former gays don`t exist because they know it`s evidence of choice.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Musuko42 & k8giggles

TRENTON, August 21, 2007 – In another case of a clash between Christian traditional values and the new secular sexual morality, the United Methodist Church group that owns a private campground retreat are suing the New Jersey government, saying its rights of religious freedom are being violated. The state is investigating a discrimination charge brought against the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association by a pair of lesbians who wanted to use the private retreat campground for a “civil union” ceremony.

It`s already started, Another lesbian couple has sued a Knight of Columbus hall for not renting their space to them for their wedding reception.

If civil unions don`t satisfy your needs, Then lobby to change them so they will. Leave the word `marriage` out of it and quit aggravating Christians for standing up for their beliefs.
0
Reply
Male 582
Musuko42- "Not caring what the world thinks of you (then acting all offended when we get annoyed with you for it)."

Again, The USA was established to get away from European forms of government. Do you honestly care what Americans think of you? Not really. And we don`t care what you think either. Why should we? Europe in general hasn`t done anything exceptional since the renaissance.

We are not perfect and never will be. But our system is exceptional. America has her problems, but we are working them out and we are still the best deal on the planet.

We don`t care what some outsiders say about us. We are not "offended" at all. Its like jabbing a stick into an anthill. They all run around in furious motion. But they cant do anything about it because they are only ants. It may be interesting to watch or even a little funny. But in the end it doesn`t matter.
0
Reply
Female 15
@CrakrJak
I`m sorry but your comment is blatantly incorrect. Many US states do NOT offer civil unions. According to Wikipedia (sorry I don`t have a lot of time), 5 states plus DC have gay marriage and an additional 9 perform civil unions or something similar. On the other side, a full 19 states ban any type of same-sex union.

Furthermore, this has never been about the state forcing a church to marry anyone. For better or worse, churches/houses of worship are free to discriminate against whomever they like and refuse to perform a marriage ceremony that goes against their rules. For a completely innocuous example, many churches will refuse to do a wedding if at least one person is not a member of that denomination. Two people for whom it is completely legal to get married, and a church won`t marry them.

Be a hateful bigot if you must. But at least get your facts straight. The GLBT community are not the ones trying to break the separation of church and state.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Wizard77

"Not really. Who cares?"

There`s reason number two. Not caring what the world thinks of you (then acting all offended when we get annoyed with you for it).
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak.

"They now want to literally `rub it in the face` of Christians and force churches to accept their lifestyle, Or else face legal action."

The world does not revolve around your pathetic little religion.

Do you really think we`re campaigning to marry our loved ones just so we can irritate you little fundies?

It pisses me off that so many gay people all over the world have to fight with YOU pathetic little fundies just so they can get the basic human decency and respect that straight people have...and bloody well abuse and take for granted!

Destroy the sanctity of marriage? We could hardly f**k it up worse than straight people already have!
0
Reply
Male 2,850
" Now they want to sully the word `marriage`, Then force churches into marrying them. "

Excuse me? You`re telling ME what I want, are you?

What I WANT is the automatic right to visit my partner in hospital.
What I WANT is to pay my taxes jointly with my partner.
What I WANT is for my partner to keep our home instead of having to sell it to pay the inheritance tax if I die.
What I WANT is to get a joint mortgage with my partner without having to fight the lenders to convince them that we`re together.

What I WANT is only what you already have and take for granted. And thankfully, I live in a country that isn`t as chock full of paranoid conservatives as yours.

Get this through your skull: I don`t WANT to get married in your church, BECAUSE I AM NOT CHRISTIAN!

I don`t give a rat`s arse about your church discriminating. I care about my (and your, because I have friends there) GOVERNMENT discriminating.
0
Reply
Female 1,264
The solution is to stop getting into other people`s lives. Don`t like gay marriage? Don`t marry a person of your same sex. End of story.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
DavioMagnifi: Many US states do offer civil unions, But that evidently wasn`t enough capitulation to the gay community. Now they want to sully the word `marriage`, Then force churches into marrying them.

This isn`t about equality under the law, They can have that with a civil union. They now want to literally `rub it in the face` of Christians and force churches to accept their lifestyle, Or else face legal action.
0
Reply
Male 599
"The UK DOES have Civil Partnerships, a form of civil union available to same-sex couples, however, which is IDENTICAL in law to marriage in everything but name. "

And why the US doesnt do this baffles me.
0
Reply
Female 251
@Musuko42, I`m glad you set the record straight! I hate it when people do that :( The uk is alright! plus we don`t have crazy protesters outside the ceremonies claiming that "Fags go to hell."
I love you americans but you`re damned crazy :)
0
Reply
Male 582
"Want to know why half the world thinks you are a country of morons?"

Not really. Who cares?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Heureux

"The U.K. currently bans same-sex marriage."

Get your facts straight before you start bashing my country. The UK has NOT banned same-sex marriage. It simply has not legalised it. There is a big difference.

The UK DOES have Civil Partnerships, a form of civil union available to same-sex couples, however, which is IDENTICAL in law to marriage in everything but name.

My country provides a form of union for gay couples that is IDENTICAL to marriage. It`s not perfect, of course ("seperate but equal" is never perfect), but we`re certainly a damn sight further along than YOUR country.

Want to know why half the world thinks you are a country of morons? This is part of the reason; arrogantly blathering on about other countries and cultures whilst being obviously ignorant of anything about them!
0
Reply
Male 244
@Boredered

No, no no. Marriage has many civil implications and benefits. It`s no longer just a `holy term` the moment you bring in matters like that.
0
Reply
Female 5,222
lol
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"So if im married to a woman by a justice of the peace on a beach, should I call it a civil union because it wasnt in a church or presided over by a religious figure?"

Pretty much.
0
Reply
Male 190
Im for this. While I believe in the sanctity of marriage viewpoint, I think it was destroyed by straight couples long before the idea of gay marriage gained any steam. Im not necessarily against divorce, but I do not think you should be allowed to remarry. I dont understand what the fuss is about. Marriage is mostly a failed institution and fodder for comedians than a sacred institution. Gays did nothing to destroy marriage, it was a joke long before they entered the picture. If they want it so bad, let em have it. Im sure after 5 to 10 years theyll want to give it back.
0
Reply
Male 648
So if im married to a woman by a justice of the peace on a beach, should I call it a civil union because it wasnt in a church or presided over by a religious figure?
0
Reply
Male 2,506
Gays should be legally binded or something, marriage is a holy term though
0
Reply
Male 648
@CrakrJak

"I`ve never said that gays shouldn`t deserve rights. I don`t believe they should be allowed to `marry`. I don`t care if they want a civil union, Just don`t call it a marriage. "

Too funny...but not surprising in the least considering the source.

As for the bumper sticker, Most married folks would never risk it being stuck with the same person forEVER! Divorce is the ace up their sleeves...juuuust incase.
0
Reply
Female 322
That`s great
0
Reply
Male 1,357
ahaha, ultimatum!
0
Reply
Male 2,441
clever
0
Reply
Male 25,416
hmmm......
0
Reply
Male 260
If they want to make there lives as miserable as ours, i say let them :p I say never marry and never have kids. I wish i was gay, then i wouldn`t have to have the "i don`t want kids" discussion with my girlfriend -_- Aaaa life would be so easy
0
Reply
Female 4,084
if you can find someone, ANYONE, who will put up with your crap, laugh at your jokes, listen to you sing in the shower, & not try to smother you with a pillow at night, you`re pretty GD lucky. & if you choose to make a life with that person you have every right to do so. whatever dangles (or doesn`t) between the legs is completely immaterial.

EVERYONE should have the right to marry and with marriage have all the rights and privileges attached. are you aware that (in the U.S.) if you are estranged from your family for 30 years, living with your same sex partner for that length of time, that your homophobic family has more rights to you and/or your estate than your partner? yes, the same people who threw you out for being honest can reap benefits from your hard work. UNLESS you spends oodles of cash making other arrangements. CRIMINAL!
0
Reply
Female 2,352
Agreed.

There would be a lot of unhappily married people out there. XD
0
Reply
Male 109
:| this is a great idea D:
0
Reply
Male 1,815
rainonthe4th. isn`t a website.
Although rainon4th.com is. It`s a gay bar. Did they screw up their own bumper stickers?
0
Reply
Female 282
@Heureux

Sociopath: a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

You`re using it wrong.
0
Reply
Male 1,164
I like this idea. I think it should fly.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]People with healthy sexual identity do not exhibit their sexual identity.[/quote]

They may not *exhibit* it, but it shouldn`t be necessary for them to hide it either. Things like living together as a couple, having a wedding, holding hands, etc, shouldn`t need to be hidden.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]True, some are sociopaths. Implying that being gay is as ad hominem is hate speech.[/quote]

I should have realised that I would have to spell it out for the hard of thinking:

Saying that everyone who objects to homosexuality in general and homosexual marriage in particular is themselves homosexual is ad hominem not because it`s saying they`re homosexual but because it`s saying that they are hypocrites.

Have you any idea what `sociopath` means? If you do, why are you using it incorrectly? No, wait, I already know the answer. It`s because you`re a lowlife who raves any accusation that enters your fevered mind as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with you in any way.

Here`s a couple of facts to jam a spanner in your works:

i) I`m bisexual.
ii) I think a person`s position on the homo/hetero spectrum should be ignored in all law and all social custom.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion`s lie about `religious symbols` is a just that - the Quakers have chosen of their own accord to bless same-sex marriages. No one was forced.[/quote]

I`m sure that nationalism is just one of your many irrational prejudices, but here`s a shocker for you: there`s a world outside the USA.

You could apologise, but I don`t care as I have no respect for you and thus don`t care what you think. Since I also think that no-one whose opinion matters to me pays any attention to you, I`m fine.
0
Reply
Male 363
Meh, I prefer the one that goes:

"against gay marriage? Then don`t have one!"
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]angilion is a liar.[/quote]

I`m sure most people here know never to take you seriously.

You can`t change reality by insulting me.
0
Reply
Male 221
That sounds fair to me... as long as i marry cheryl cole :)
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote] Pretty interesting claim you`re making with providing proof. You fail.[/quote]

They want, and will almost certainly get, something that will remain unavailable to heterosexuals.

You can burble "You fail" as often as you like, but you won`t change anything by doing so.

Group advocacy is never about equality. It`s about group advocacy.
0
Reply
Female 2,120
Agree with picture. People whine about how gays are ruining the sanctity of marriage then get married to and divorce five different women. /facepalm
0
Reply
Male 3,372
@Wizard: No, your parents probably aren`t closeted gays, but they`re probably not out there actively trying to deny gays equality either.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"you don`t need to move so that you can have a kid, you need have sex with a woman. Tis simple biology."

well for most of us that requires moving ;)
0
Reply
Male 9,305
"didn`t we have this discussion before?"

We did...about a hundred times.
0
Reply
Male 591
"People with healthy sexual identity do not exhibit their sexual identity."

I so agree. Heterosexual couples that kiss in public are sick.
0
Reply
Male 582
EmilyLitella said- "People with healthy sexual identity do not exhibit their sexual identity."

I disagree. A persons sexuality is a significant part of who they are IF they have a healthy sexual identity. It is apparent in how you interact with everyone around you both male and female.
0
Reply
Male 94
It`s true homosexual marriage can`t cheapen the institution which is marriage (note individual cases excluded) as people have already done that with a 50% divorce rate. A promise is a promise f--k faces, get over yourselves.
0
Reply
Male 582
Seriously? Look I can see no logical reason to bar gay marriage. It seems strange and oppressive to block it. But you are totally out in left field with that other hog crap. LOL

Honestly, My parents are in their sixties. Married over 40 years and just real traditional "farm folk" through and through. They are both against gay marriage. Most of their friends (also predominantly in their 60s) are against gay marriage. Now I think its because they were trained to be afraid of "gay stuff" since childhood. You are going to sit there and tell me that BOTH my Mother and Father are closet homosexuals? And so are the dozens of men and women that that are their friend???

That has got to be some of the stupidest poo I have ever heard. I really am laughing (well chuckling) out loud over this.
0
Reply
Female 16
People with healthy sexual identity do not exhibit their sexual identity.
0
Reply
Male 16
I like how that was actually taken as my end all argument. Looks like some people had their funny bone removed :(

Though with their assumptions, I hear the incoming flames about how the "funny bone" doesn`t affect humor. :)

Oh and I would be delighted if you used my link on the first page davymid!
0
Reply
Male 3,372
angillon said: "Incidentally, what narks me about it is that I actually fell for the line about only wanting the same rights as heterosexuals.

After all these years, I shouldn`t have fallen for group advocacy campaigners saying they only want equality. It`s never been true, so why did I believe it this time?"

Uh...are you claiming that they want superiority? Pretty interesting claim you`re making with providing proof. You fail.
0
Reply
Female 237
Dainty... that`s awesome! LOL
0
Reply
Male 128
I have to say it is very very clever...
0
Reply
Male 3,372
Everytime a couple gets a divorce, it cheapens my own traditional marriage.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
"your link was ok until the whole "and if you disagree its because you are secretly gay and ashamed." That sort of BS is for someone that doesn`t have a solid argument for their case."

Actually, it is founded in observation. Does the name Larry Craig mean anything to you? How about George Rekers? The reality is that the people who make the loudest uproar condemning homosexuality have an ironic pattern of getting caught having or seeking gay sex.

http://tinyurl.com/2czbtll
0
Reply
Male 1,054
Angilion`s lie about `religious symbols` is a just that - the Quakers have chosen of their own accord to bless same-sex marriages. No one was forced.

" It`s very unlikely to be true that *everyone* who has any objection to homosexual marriage is themselves homosexual. That argument is at least as baseless as the arguments against homosexual marriage and is essentially just ad hominem. "

True, some are sociopaths. Implying that being gay is as ad hominem is hate speech. However, it is clear that those who scream the loudest in opposition to equality for GLBTQ people are repressing homosexual desires to some degree. Time after time after time, the rabid homophobes in religion and politics are caught soliciting sex from other men in restrooms, from masseuse`s, cops, etc.

People with healthy sexual identity do not exhibit homophobia.
0
Reply
Female 355
I still like this one the best:

0
Reply
Male 1,054
"That has already started in the UK."

First, the U.S. and U.K. have different laws regarding marriage - the U.K. has a state religion. The U.K. currently bans same-sex marriage.

"In the case of polygamy, there isn`t one. So that`s a valid slippery slope argument. "

Again, the problem is that this particular slippery slope argument applies more to heterosexuals than to homosexuals. After all, if we allow a man to marry one woman, what the hell is to stop him from marrying two, or seven, or 200? Polygamy is a long-standing heterosexual tradition, and if one really wants to prevent it - one must ban heterosexual marriage lest heterosexuals fall back into this form of traditional heterosexual marriage.

But, bigots bring up polygamy not because they oppose it - its usually het males dreaming of having multiple women to **** who bring it up anyways - it is mentioned to malign same-sex couples.

And to prove that people do no
0
Reply
Male 1,054
Angilion said "The next step is forcing churches to conduct homosexual weddings. There are campaigners who want that and it is already being talked about."

angilion is a liar.

Polygamy is a traditional form of heterosexual marriage. So invoking polygamy is a reason to ban mixed sex marriage.

And child-brides are also a traditional form of heterosexual marriage, so crackJak`s fear mongering is only a reason to ban heterosexual marriage.
0
Reply
Male 1,678
Yep, a bumper sticker is really gonna get you the right to marry, well done.
0
Reply
Male 537
Why is IAB trying to troll us? This is sad, what happened to the good ol` IAB?
0
Reply
Male 196
Okay, that`s fine.
0
Reply
Male 2,121
Holy sh-t! A post with a religious element causing a thread full of wall-o-text comments arguing about religion! On IAB?!?!?
0
Reply
Male 582
Angilion said "The next step is forcing churches to conduct homosexual weddings. There are campaigners who want that and it is already being talked about."


Wouldn`t that be covered under the first amendment? What I mean is, one church (talking buildings here) says "yeah we do same sex marriage ceremonies here" and some building down the street says "no we don`t do that" and both are protected in their right to do, or not do?
0
Reply
Female 2,509
didn`t we have this discussion before?
0
Reply
Male 18
Umm…okay, so if Christians can use the Bible as a rule book to dictate who I can and cannot marry, can I use it to make my slave fear and respect me more?

Ephesians 6:5-9 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Incidentally, what narks me about it is that I actually fell for the line about only wanting the same rights as heterosexuals.

After all these years, I shouldn`t have fallen for group advocacy campaigners saying they only want equality. It`s never been true, so why did I believe it this time?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]wanger21: I`ve never said that gays shouldn`t deserve rights. I don`t believe they should be allowed to `marry`. I don`t care if they want a civil union, Just don`t call it a marriage. Later they`ll try to force churches to marry them or face the legal action of denying them their `rights`.[/quote]

That has already started in the UK.

Campaigning to force secular authorities to allow religious symbolism in homosexual civil marriages appears to have almost completely succeeded - the government has already said it will probably happen soon. Religious symbolism is forbidden in heterosexual civil marriages and will remain so.

The next step is forcing churches to conduct homosexual weddings. There are campaigners who want that and it is already being talked about.

So CrakrJak has a good point here.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: The slippery slope argument, Against gay marriage, Not only could allow polygamy (again), But also child marriage because children have the same civil rights as adults with the exception of the right to vote. It may even legally enforce arranged marriage contracts.[/quote]

I wrote "In order to disprove it in any given situation, you have to show a defineable and important distinction that serves as an obstacle on the slope metaphorical slope."

In the case of polygamy, there isn`t one. So that`s a valid slippery slope argument.

In the case of child marriage, there is one. There are numerous things that aren`t allowed before various ages. That`s the block on the slippery slope.

For enforced arranged marriages, the block is the requirement for consent. No slippery slope.

Actually, I`d go further and say that those two things aren`t even on the same slope. Where`s the connection between them and homosexual marriag
0
Reply
Male 129
i figured out why crakrjak such a dick about gay mariage!
Hes a self hating gay homophobe!
People like you are bad, the real haters in this world. All they want is love and your giving is hate.
0
Reply
Male 129
@crakrjak
just a small thing, those who are gay are not known as `gays`,merely men who are gay.
Its like refering to tall people as `talls`, grammaticly speaking it makes no sence.

P.S im aware of my crap spelling above
0
Reply
Female 901
WIN.
0
Reply
Male 582
sstutchman- your link was ok until the whole "and if you disagree its because you are secretly gay and ashamed." That sort of BS is for someone that doesn`t have a solid argument for their case.

Busting on CJ is a fools game. Right or wrong, HE is well read on anything he posts about. I am of the mind that gay marriage is pretty much covered in the constitution. Either you believe in equal protection under the law or you don`t. But he isn`t an idiot and HE certainly isn`t uninformed.

So long as your argument is based in anger and insults, you will lose more people than you gather.

And wanger21 is so obviously a sock-puppet it isn`t funny.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
wanger21: I`ve never said that gays shouldn`t deserve rights. I don`t believe they should be allowed to `marry`. I don`t care if they want a civil union, Just don`t call it a marriage. Later they`ll try to force churches to marry them or face the legal action of denying them their `rights`.
0
Reply
Male 3,076
hehe this bumper sticker isn`t bad but what sstutchman posted is much better.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
yanging: Apparently you are not aware of the consequences that an appeals court or supreme court ruling can have. It can not only nullify the law in question, but others as well. If the court rules that the state cannot define what marriage is and who can and can`t have one then it opens a whole can of worms. It becomes legal `precedent` that can be used for future and pending cases.

Also, Judges don`t legislate they rule.
You may also remember the Dredd Scott case, That was a prime example of an awful supreme court decision that reinforced slavery. As a consequence Civil Righta & Equality for blacks didn`t come for another hundred years.

Your attempt at trying to paint me as a racist was infantile and it shows your own prejudice against people with a conservative view.
0
Reply
Male 4
don`t respond to crakrjak.. (s)he`s always posting the same thing arguing that gays don`t deserve rights. I`m not sure why (s)he`s so obsessed with it, but really, it`s better to not pay any attention to it.
0
Reply
Male 172
"Angilion: The slippery slope argument, Against gay marriage, Not only could allow polygamy (again), But also child marriage because children have the same civil rights as adults with the exception of the right to vote. It may even legally enforce arranged marriage contracts. The unintended consequences of many laws and judicial decisions have caused a lot of pain and strife in this country."

Allowing gay marriage wouldn`t allow anything. It might be pointed to as a reason for further legislation, but each case must be tried separately based in its own merit.

I suppose we shouldn`t have allowed the negroes to go free, because it might allow them to have rights and all that. Oh noes!
0
Reply
Male 275
nice flag
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Angilion: The slippery slope argument, Against gay marriage, Not only could allow polygamy (again), But also child marriage because children have the same civil rights as adults with the exception of the right to vote. It may even legally enforce arranged marriage contracts. The unintended consequences of many laws and judicial decisions have caused a lot of pain and strife in this country.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I do have two objections to the arguments put forward in the page sstutchman links to:

i) It`s very unlikely to be true that *everyone* who has any objection to homosexual marriage is themselves homosexual. That argument is at least as baseless as the arguments against homosexual marriage and is essentially just ad hominem.

ii) The "slippery slope" argument isn`t *inherently* wrong in all situations. In order to disprove it in any given situation, you have to show a defineable and important distinction that serves as an obstacle on the slope metaphorical slope. You can`t just say it`s retarded and leave it at that. So marrying animals isn`t on a slippery slope from homosexual marriages because of the distinction between humans and animals, but polygamy is because there is no such distinction.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
sstutchman, you win the internetz. Mind if we feature your post on the front page? Won`t happen without your say-so bro.
0
Reply
Male 16
Male 37
Bram, you don`t need to move so that you can have a kid, you need have sex with a woman. Tis simple biology.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
DEAL!

(Knows they won`t back this up, but it`s worth a shot.)
0
Reply
Male 506
Deal.
0
Reply
Male 28
@Buck It`s a counter to "It`s against the Bible" Basically it`s another, "If you`re going by the Bible you can`t just pick and choose what goes"
0
Reply
Male 26
buck176, you are ignorant.
0
Reply
Female 1,623
lol, awesome
0
Reply
Female 533
Genius. Nough said
0
Reply
Male 378
That`s just dumb. Is this saying if gays marry, they wouldn`t divorce? Or that since only heterosexuals can marry, homosexuals should consider themselves divorced? Either way, it`s stupid.
0
Reply
Male 577
It does kind of irritate me that I can`t get married, but that several of my friends have been married more than once, to people that I`m not sure they even liked very much. lol

I like Texas. I don`t want to have to move, just so that I can have a kid.
0
Reply
Male 404
@nitrain With more than 50% of marriages ending in divorce, heterosexuals haven`t been doing a great job at upholding the sacred institution of marriage either.
0
Reply
Female 282
@nitrain "civil union" sounds robotic, the country doesn`t allow polygamy because they feel it would cause a higher percent of one sex to compete over another and spike aggression, and if relatives marry it increases the likelihood that the children they create will be born with genetic defects, diseases, and disorders.

Secondly, you`d be bastardizing marriage just as much as the 50% of marriages that end in divorce, so the argument is "if two people of the opposite sex can marry and be miserable, why is it so wrong for two people of the same sex to marry and be happy?".

Funny though,if you legalized gay marriage, you`d also be satisfying the polygamists in the sense that they don`t have to only set their sights on the opposite sex for companionship.

These anti-all of the above arguments were developed before anyone realized that overpopulation was a severe possibility and during the time where the continuation of a bloodline was important
0
Reply
Male 625
@ Nitran "If marriage can easily be redefined like that, why not let polygamists marry, or relatives?"

Marriage has been redefined plenty of times....Look around you, you see whites married to blacks, don`t you?

Plus where are you getting your definition of marriage? Many groups / cultures in the world practice polygamy and other such marriage practices....I`m guessing you`re referring to the Judea-Christian definition. Just know that not everyone follows that.

As for polygamy, I could care less. Make it legal. As long as all the parties involved are fine with it, I don`t see a problem.

As for relatives, well reproducing with a relative greatly increases the chances of adverse recessive genes to show up in your child. But only a tiny, tiny minority of people are attracted to their relatives. And if they want to marry (knowing the risks and what not), then whatever. I don`t really have a problem with that. (I mean they`re going to have
0
Reply
Male 226
@superrey19
Not to mention premarital sex :/
0
Reply
Male 16
Marriage is a gender issue, not an sexual preference issue. Marriage is between a man and a woman, civil unions are between members of the same sex. There`s no need to bastardize the institution of marriage to appease less than 10% of the population. If marriage can easily be redefined like that, why not let polygamists marry, or relatives?
0
Reply
Male 66
stop getting divorced America we might be able to get rid of um
0
Reply
Male 158
DIVORCE IS BANNED BY CATHOLICS
0
Reply
Male 66
sounds good to me
0
Reply
Male 25
Catholics say gay marriage goes against the religion but so does divorce. Irony at its finest.
0
Reply
Male 5,194
Not a new concept -
http://rescuemarriage.org/

There is a blatant hypocrisy to the people who want to "protect" traditional marriage by banning gay marriage WITHOUT BANNING DIVORCE. Next time you hear some self-righteous Bible-thumping conservative who wants to ban gay marriage instead of banning divorce, kindly point out what a gigantic hypocrite he or she is.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
deal
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]why wouldnt we be able to divorce?[/quote]

The reasons given as to why homosexual marriage shouldn`t be allowed all apply equally well to divorce in heterosexual marriage. If you believe the reasons are valid, you should reject both. If you don`t, you should allow both. To allow one and not the other means that you are contradicting yourself.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]How is the marriage of gays somewhat similar to the divorce of straight people? I fail to understand.[/quote]

The main root of discrimination against homosexuality in the USA is Christianity, although condemnation of homosexuality is nowhere near as clear in Christianity as many Christians think it is.

The Christian bible speaks against divorce more clearly than it speaks against homosexual sex. There`s no mention of the Christian god hating homosexuals (and there wasn`t really a word for homosexuals in those days anyway - people referred mainly to homosexual sex as an act) but there is a mention of the Christian god hating divorce (Malachi 2:16 et alia).

Therefore, in order to be self-consistent, Christians must allow both or neither.

It`s not quite true - the Christian bible allows divorce of adulterers and unbelievers - but it is a good point.
0
Reply
Male 230
why wouldnt we be able to divorce?
0
Reply
Male 293
DEAL!
0
Reply
Female 58
I dont get what the big deal is with the gay marriage. Everyone is equal. If Benjamin Franklin was gay would he have been any less of a great dude? no. So lets pull the gay sticks out of our butts and give them the rigths they deserve. Not as gays, but as people. Lol..... Gay sticks... out of our butts...
0
Reply
Male 582
My politics are fairly conservative and I am a Christian, (albeit not the "church-goer" sort for many years) but I have yet to hear a single compelling argument against gay marriage.

Can someone clue me in? And I don`t mean this "GOD DIDN`T MAKE ADAM & STEVE!!!" BS either. We all like to think we are reasonably open-minded and its not like I have never changed my opinion after hearing a solid argument. If there is a platform against this rooted in something other than "yeah but they are queers" Id like to hear it.
0
Reply
Female 914
DAYUM!!
0
Reply
Male 712
I look at it this way...let `em marry.

I don`t have to like it. I don`t have to support it but I say fair`s fair. If I have to go through the bullcrap misery of parting with half my money and half the crap that I worked my ass off for to some broad who`s playing a vendetta game in court, so do gays.

For the state to decide that I should have to fork over the revenue based on my heterosexuality is discriminatory is well.
0
Reply
Male 226
@ZNaught
One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that it destroys the sanctity of marriage. However, divorce does the same, and is not a result of fear mongering.

As far as gays getting a disproportionate amount of divorces, I don`t know where you are getting your info from, because they are unfounded seeing as gays can`t marry.
0
Reply
Male 4,680
Oh just let them marry already. America has far bigger problems to worry about, two men wanting to get married shouldn`t get in the way of things like the energy crisis or the troubles in the middle east.
0
Reply
Male 3,755
That is pretty good. All the divorced people or children of divorced parents will get pissy, but it is a very valid point. If they could put ("unless in the case of physical or verbal abuse or other extreme circumstances)" on there, they`d be even better.

We claim to hold marriage so sacred, but we treat it like a joke sometimes.
0
Reply
Male 351
How is the marriage of gays somewhat similar to the divorce of straight people? I fail to understand. Besides, if gay marriage was allowed, the gays would be the ones getting the disproportionate amount of divorces.
0
Reply
Male 348
Bmxerboy13
Male, 13-17, Southern US***** <---- `nough said
0
Reply
Male 1
Id hit the drater just to get that bumber sticker off.
0
Reply
Male 348
Awesome.
0
Reply
Male 480
AWESOME bumper sticker!
0
Reply
Male 222
Gays can marry when they admit that what they are doing is wrong.
0
Reply
Male 363
lol thats just stupid.
0
Reply
Male 5,189
LOL! I want that just for lulz.
0
Reply
Female 166
Soooooooooooooooo True!
0
Reply
Male 976
Just awesome.
0
Reply
Female 3,562
Awesome, I totally want that sticker, but then people would think I`m gay. Need one that says "if I can divorce, than they can marry."
0
Reply
Female 322
Great - I was just thinking yesterday how it`s just as much against `family values` for Larry King to get married what, 8 times? as it is for gays to marry.
0
Reply
Female 198
I NEED that bumper sticker. That is just pure win.
0
Reply
Male 1,598
A lasting marriage between two of the same gender is better than a straight couple getting a divorce.
0
Reply
Female 9,584
Agreed.
0
Reply
Male 2,748
hahahahahah, oh man... now THAT is a brilliant idea!! top notch!!
0
Reply
Female 170
lmao! win
0
Reply
Male 541
Sign makes a valid point.
"The sanctity of marriage" is bull, because people get divorced everyfunking day! Have you seen the divorce rate lately?
0
Reply
Male 43
That`s not an improvement.
0
Reply
Female 318
Lol, too bad it`d never work XD Either, funny stuff :P

@tws8631: Why do you hate rainbows so much? I mean, they`re pretty and colorful and if you see two of them, truly awe-inspiring. ;P
Don`t hate rainbows, they`re a natural part of life and besides, how would you feel if rainbows hated on you?

Forget the discrimination against gays (or anyone else for that matter), we have a new hatred to fight: the rainbow haters!
:P
0
Reply
Male 316
STFU rainbows
0
Reply
Male 21,005
Link: Gays Have A Great Same-Sex Marriage Solution [Pic] [Rate Link] - We`re pretty sure this idea would work if it would pass.
0
Reply