When Marriage = A Doughnut [Pic]

Submitted by: SweepOfDeath 2 years ago

Apples/oranges/marriage/doughnuts.
There are 43 comments:
Male 527
@xavroche
And that is where i think you are wrong. If a gay couple can marry, why would it be a problem for a `anti gays marriage person` to be a marriage commissioner?
As long as gay couples aren`t refused the right to get married (or have to pay extra etc.)there is no problem.
Let gays be gays and anti gays marriage people be anti gay marriage people. As long as they respect the rules: No biting, hair-pulling or punching with closed fist.
0
Reply
Male 36,437
@xavroche: My point was not is it right or wrong, but that it happens in reality; which @SleepyHallow denied. The marriage ceremony and the paperwork are two different things, and this rule applied to the former. Again, I`m not saying it`s wrong, but it does preclude "choice" eh?

@Johanvb: So it`s not just Canada, eh? Interesting.

[quote]I don`t see major issue with 5cats idea of "Union" being the parent term all of us...[/quote]
Thanks @papajon0s1! There was a golden opportunity in Canada to clarify all that stuff, but the Gov`t didn`t do anything positive.

@Squrlz4: It`s my observation that ONE side (liberals) frequently knee-jerks on EVERY issue imaginable.

Point in fact: Who`s talking about "marriage to a tree" on the conservative side? It`s yet another strawman...
0
Reply
Male 1,204
"...Marriage was special now it`s a joke, all because gays wanted to hijack the word marriage and force straight religious people to accept them or else..."

Tell me again, what are the divorce rates for straight people? Then try telling me again how "special" marriage is. It`s been a joke for a long time and the "gays" had nothing to do with it.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
`The marriage weirdness has just begun, people will be marrying their pets, trees, children and everything else.`

Just as soon as trees and pets can give informed consent.

0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Papajonon: "Love how *some* of the libs on here..." (my emphasis).

I`m really encouraged to see this qualification. Thanks for that, Papajon0s. For the most part, you guys have stayed away from broad brushes and ad-hominem attacks, which I appreciate.
0
Reply
Male 579
Love how some of the libs on here lump all conservatives and religious into one hate-filled rant and then say they are the intolerant ones. I think the analogy of the sign is poor at best. From a Christian standpoint he argument speaks to the sanctity of life. That said, it should not be about hate and anger and endless bickering! Pope Francis himself called for an end to that being replaced with compassion and love for fellow human beings. That said, I don`t see major issue with 5cats idea of "Union" being the parent term all of us are subject to under the government and "marriage" would be a term for religious purposes. And then just drop all the hatin`!
0
Reply
Male 527
In the Netherlands gay marriage is accepted for a longer time now.
And though i couldn`t care less who married what, when and where (unless they are underaged and/or forced marriages or marriage solely to get a legal status), i have a small problem with the gay community.

Gay activists have arragend by law that if you are a marriage commissioner and you do not want to marry a gay couple (for instance because you are a Christian) you may not work as one.

So although a town has several marriage commissioners or could get one from a nearby town and thus could still perform a gay marriage a refusing-officer (`weigerambtenaar`, we have a special word for that ;) ) may not work as a marriage commissioner.

So gays who fought against discrimination are now discriminating others.
If they would had arranged that a town must have a person available that could marry them it would have been fine. But they had to make it so that specific people would have to pay.
0
Reply
Male 819
@5Cats: Since your friend is government appointed, and is paid to perform a civil marriage, I find it completed logical that she would face termination of her appointment should she not want to perform a marriage that is allowed by Canadian law. Since she chose to perform civil and therefore nondenominational marriages, her personal religious beliefs need to be put aside.

I would expect similar termination of a police officer or a judge who refuses to apply a new law for personal beliefs.
0
Reply
Male 661
Crakr, you have said some wild stuff in the past, some I`ve not disagreed with, but seriously...

"...The marriage weirdness has just begun, people will be marrying their pets, trees, children and everything else..."

Do you truly believe this? Like on a grand scale, not a one off thing?

"...By the way, I want to know what gay people would think of two non-gay same sex people getting married now? Or three or four people possibly in mixed arrangements?"

Just as with all people, probably a wide and varied bunch of opinions. Generally I believe they wouldn`t care at all.

"...Marriage was special now it`s a joke, all because gays wanted to hijack the word marriage and force straight religious people to accept them or else..."

Or, did they want equality?
0
Reply
Male 36,437
[quote]A "Ceremony" is what is conducted under the guidelines of whatever traditions you abide by and NO ONE is trying to change that.[/quote]

@SleepyHallow: This is 100% untrue.

My friend was a "marriage commissioner" here in Canada when the "gay law" passed. She and ALL MCs were told, in no uncertain terms, that if they refused to marry a gay couple: their commission would be revoked. PERIOD. No if`s ands or religious beliefs involved.

She was a "civil worker" performing the ceremony and helping expedite the paperwork, not just a "rubber stamping" bureaucrat. But that`s how it was: do or be fired.
0
Reply
Male 36,437
@SleepyHallow: You do know you`ve supported MY position? Yes?
And opposed @QueenZira and @Gerry1`s positions, correct?

Yet you call them "intolerant religious/conservative morons are incapable of being able to tell the difference between a "Wedding Ceremony" and a "Marriage License"."??

That`s not very nice! @Zira and @Gerry are going to be mad at you... :-P
0
Reply
Male 653
@QueenZira We should also remember this oddity...
0
Reply
Male 653
@CrakrJak Two people entering a civil contract together, ostensibly because they love each other. Seems like a definition to me... as for "pets, trees, children and everything else", I rather think the law will not extend to those (apart from in Japan?). Tree lovers and paedophiles don`t exactly hold much sway in the electorate.
0
Reply
Male 1,983
How come intolerant religious/conservative morons are incapable of being able to tell the difference between a "Wedding Ceremony" and a "Marriage License".

A "Ceremony" is what is conducted under the guidelines of whatever traditions you abide by and NO ONE is trying to change that.
A "License" is a piece of government paperwork maintained by a specified agency [county Registrar in this case] for legal and record keeping purses.

*YOU* have no right to be telling my what I can and cannot do within the traditions of my own belief system just like I have no Right to tell you can or cannot do inside the doors of your closed-minded little hate groups [short of felony crimes that is]

So where do you get off thinking that you have the right to tell other what to do but no one can tell you what to do?
Where is that disconnect in your diseased brains that allows you to be hypocrites without realizing you are hypocrites?
0
Reply
Male 714
-cont. does not become the accepted protocol of the police force.
0
Reply
Male 714
what a moronic argument for gay marriage. how does this sound? `Claiming someone else`s religious views are homophobic because of your political beliefs are like... blah, blah, blah` I don`t really care if gays get married or not - that`s their lookout - what i do hope is that forcing people to say how wonderful it is on threat of imprisonment.
0
Reply
Male 137
It always pisses me off when someone has a donut and I do not. It is bullpoo. Should be a law against eating a donut if you`re not going to give me one. Or two.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Crakr and 5cats argument summed up by their venerated intellectual forbear. (With much thanks to Jon Hughes).

Yep, it`s gonna be turrible I tells ya. Frogs, locusts, rivers urv blurd! Dogs and cats living together. I`m so glad they`ve decided to selflessly sacrifice themselves as spokesmen for all us straight religious folk, to advocate what all of us, without nuance or question believe. And to fight for our common, undifferentiated, totally bland olde tyme religion, Aphrodite`s proud of you boys, go get `em for Her, tigers! Rawwr!

0
Reply
Male 2,143
"Our love is so special, I can`t wait till the government gets involved..." said no two people in love....ever...
0
Reply
Male 17,512
As I`ve said before, If marriage can`t be defined as 1 man and 1 woman anymore then it will never be definable again. Pandora`s box has been opened, good luck trying to close the lid later.

Now every service company, church and venue has a sword above them, if they refuse service based on their religious beliefs the ACLU will sue them into oblivion.

The marriage weirdness has just begun, people will be marrying their pets, trees, children and everything else.

By the way, I want to know what gay people would think of two non-gay same sex people getting married now? Or three or four people possibly in mixed arrangements?

Marriage was special now it`s a joke, all because gays wanted to hijack the word marriage and force straight religious people to accept them or else.
0
Reply
Male 392
Ok, yeah some one else eating a donut doesn`t hurt me. But when I keep saying I`m on a diet and they keep offering donuts it gets annoying. Just like when I keep getting hit on by gay guys.
0
Reply
Male 14,774
Why people would want to disallow gay marriage - and how they can live with themselves for being so biggoted - is totally beyond me. /smh
0
Reply
Male 36,437
@WhoDat: Ooo! Very punny!

I prefer thinking of girls & scissors...



Senjogahara from Bakemonogatari! Her favorite weapon is a stapler... but any school supplies are lethal in her hands! Not a lesbian...



Gasi Yuno from Future Diary. Not a lesbian...
0
Reply
Male 36,437
@Rodin: Since I know people it`s happened to? I`d say...
Yes, it is true! I didn`t know it was 3 years in Ontario, but there it is.

@Squrlz4: Polygamy. Also if the definition of "adult" (Age of Concent) gets changed? Bingo! Also: close relatives. There`s not as many of those "pushing for rights" but the argument is exactly the same as "gay rights".

Saskatchewan already recognizes "common-law" marriage where a 3rd party is sexually involved. See above.

@Gerry1: I`m saying: Make "Civil Union" the LEGAL definition of "marriage" and those other things 2ndary to that. Get "religion" out of the equation altogether!
Like I said: if you don`t file papers with the government? Does it even count?
0
Reply
Male 3,909

0
Reply
Female 6,381
In other news, former "Roseanne" daughter (Darlene) Sara Gilbert has married one Linda Perry, music writer and producer. So get over it folks.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

5Cats, as long as marriage is tied to finances and property ownership rights the guvment will always be the final authority. And I`m not going to the back of the bus with a "civil union" just to make some superstitious backward bigots feel better about their prejudices.
0
Reply
Male 316

Polygamy will have to be next. Hope my wife doesn`t mind if I find myself a doctor. As long as he`s rich. Amirite?
0
Reply
Male 3,407
no. you have a right to be pissed off at everyone else for eating doughnuts when youre on a diet. no one can blame you for that. claiming that someone elses marriage is against your religion just makes your religion seem stupid.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ 5Cats: What do you have in mind when you say "once the Pandora`s box is open"? What are you worried that might follow?

Miscegenation, or marriage between races, used to be illegal. I`m sure a lot of people who opposed doing away with the miscegenation laws used a similar Pandora`s box argument back then: "If a colored or a Chinaman can marry my daughter, what`s to stop a donkey or a pig? There will be no end to it!"

Of course, I`m sure you have concerns more reasonable than those. That said, I`m curious what they are.
0
Reply
Male 892
@5cats :

"Here? You can live with someone for 2 years, leave and unilaterally declare "common-law marriage" without their consent! Then take half their stuff..."

That is not true.
0
Reply
Male 36,437
@Gerry1: "Gay Marriage" doesn`t undermine traditional marriage. Anyone who thinks that hasn`t really thought about things much.
Changing the legal definition of "marriage" is another matter. Once Pandora`s box is open? You cannot get it shut again.

Governments should have 1 area they legislate in: Civil Unions. Period!
Church "marriages" aren`t legal anyhow unless they fill out the government paperwork, right?
So what`s the big deal?
Just say: Persons X,Y or Z can have Civil Unions & WHO CARES who marries whom? No legislation is required for a Church Wedding, it doesn`t stand up as "legal" anyhow.
Or are things drastically different in countries other than Canada?

Here? You can live with someone for 2 years, leave and unilaterally declare "common-law marriage" without their consent! Then take half their stuff...
0
Reply
Male 37,888

So you say gay marriages undermines marriage and families?
My response is "How?"

No one has yet been able to answer that question.
0
Reply
Male 7,775
I have to agree with her.
0
Reply
Male 36,437
@QueenZira: Funny how you lump the "conservatives" and "liberals" into the same, um, lump!
It`s (mostly) "conservatives" who oppose gay marriage. And Black Democrats...
And it`s mostly "liberals" who support "food control", eh?

Actually? Most people don`t oppose gays getting married (civil unions = exact same thing!) they oppose changing the laws surrounding Church Marriages.

Sure, there`s hard-core believers on both sides, but equating "foodies" and "gayies" is "teh funnies" :-)

@Rodin: Wouldn`t that be adultery? Gay or otherwise?
0
Reply
Female 4,086
if you can find someone truly willing to put up with your sh*t and you are equally willing to do the same, grab them, hold on tight, and make it legal if you so desire. it shouldn`t matter which gender you are.
0
Reply
Male 892
What if the person on the diet was married to the man that was eating the doughnut -- and that doughnut was around my penis?
0
Reply
Female 2,228
If it`s against your religion, good for you, no one else remotely cares.

agent the folks obsessed with sex are like the folks obsessed with food, you don`t get that way unless you`re having either too much or too little of it. So you fundies really ought to go out and buy some good gay mags, vids, toys or whatever and indulge yourselves already. Erotic repression isn`t healthy for anyone...
0
Reply
Male 1,243
If two people are in a consensual relationship then folks really should just keep there long twisted noses out and let live.
0
Reply
Male 172
Why care who Marries who and does what with their private parts. Really, why care?
0
Reply
Male 2,030
1) I support gay marriage.
2) Specious
A better analogy would be to say "A law against gay marriage is as silly as a law telling me how large a soda I may purchase, or what drugs I choose to ingest"
0
Reply
Male 2,579
Nooooooooooo.

Claiming that someone else`s marriage is against your religion is like STATING A FACT.

Straight people aren`t jealous of gay sex, and we don`t need to "diet" to get over how much gay sex we aren`t having.
0
Reply
Male 938
Link: When Marriage = A Doughnut [Pic] [Rate Link] - Apples/oranges/marriage/doughnuts.
0
Reply