More Dirty Work for Money

[RevFuggit]

ok, here's my issue against the pillow-biting fairies, sex exists for the purpose of procreation, and since them queens dont crank out kids, it aint right!




lmao.. damnit cant even type it with a straighface (no pun intended).

-Rev. Fuggit

[Horab Fibslager]

My only objection to the idea of gay marriage is a legislature being drafted forcing the churches to recognize it.  What will that mean?  Some asshat gay activist is going to sue a Church for the minister declining to marry him/her to his/her partner, since it is against the Church's doctrine.
Somewhere in Europe, there's a gay man suing the Catholic Church for not allowing him to be a priest.  So it's not like it won't happen.
And I'm not cool with that.  Freedom in this country shouldn't mean only freedom for the minorities and everyone else has to suck it up.  The right to hate should be a right for everyone, and not just those minority haters who declare "down with whatever we're protesting today!"

The ban, however, is completely bullshit.

If there existed someway of drafting a law that would allow gays to marry without permitting them to abuse the legislature, then I'm all for it.    They need it, they want it, there's no real reason to deny it to them.

Still, what I want to know is - what are the gays doing?  What steps are they taking to get their rights?  Why aren't the gays doing something about their own rights before Bush manages to sodomize them all with his proposed Constitutional Amendment?
I hear a lot of "Oh, boohoo, I'm never going to be allowed to marry someone I love!  I'm going to cry, and maybe make a bumpersticker protesting the injustice!"  But I don't hear any "They chose the wrong people to mess with!  This is what we're going to do about it and they'll back off or regret it! RAH!"
WTF is up with that?  They've got the numbers, and they have several extremely slick organizations in place, so where's their oomph?  Their solidarity and forward-movement?  Doesn't a hand fight better as a fist?
They're here, they're queer - I don't see too many people getting over it, though.

yes. honestly. i do agree.

[~~~~Closed~~~~]

I did have an extremely crass remark to that gay marriage arguement, but it  sucked, and was lacking in the funny.

[RevFuggit]

I did have an extremely crass remark to that gay marriage arguement, but it  sucked, and was lacking in the funny.

bah... its never stopped me... go ahead

[Demonica, Oracle of Doom]

I have a problem with straight marriage.

I could never get married straight.......needed a lot of rum first.

That's why all of my marriages were in vegas.

[Zorga, Oracle of Rum]

All you need is more practice, darling.

[~~~~Closed~~~~]

I did have an extremely crass remark to that gay marriage arguement, but it  sucked, and was lacking in the funny.

bah... its never stopped me... go ahead

now that you've encouraged me, I can't remember the comment, how do you expect someone to remember something that happened yesterday?!

[Graud the Greyface]

My only objection to the idea of gay marriage is a legislature being drafted forcing the churches to recognize it.  What will that mean?  Some asshat gay activist is going to sue a Church for the minister declining to marry him/her to his/her partner, since it is against the Church's doctrine.
Somewhere in Europe, there's a gay man suing the Catholic Church for not allowing him to be a priest.  So it's not like it won't happen.
And I'm not cool with that.  Freedom in this country shouldn't mean only freedom for the minorities and everyone else has to suck it up.  The right to hate should be a right for everyone, and not just those minority haters who declare "down with whatever we're protesting today!"

So, you're against gay marriage because some activist is going to sue the church?  You silly bitch.  You'd deny the government recognizing the rights of two loving monogamous people to live together with the same benfits that straigt couples, becasue of a lawsuit?

First off, no church has to recognize a religious marriage performed by another church.  If you're a Catholic, and you want a same-sex, religious marriage in a Catholic church, you can't.  just like you can't have a Jewish wedding in a Catholic church.  Or a Muslim wedding in a Jewish Temple.  That's becasue a religion is an institution with different game rules than the government.  The church isn't required to aknowledge the sacred aspect of anything the government rules upon.

So, gay marriage isn't about religion.  it's a civil marriage.  which means, it's not religious;  At most, it's performed by a religion that accepts gays as having the right and grace to marry (the new Anglican schism, the Unitarians, Wiccans, etc etc).  It has nothing to do with religions that don't recognize gay marriage as "correct under God".  The Massachussets Supreme court didn't say that the Catholic church had to marry gays, it said that there was nothing in the state constitution that prevented gays from civil marriages.  Further than that, thay said that it was against the constitution, as written, to deny gays the benefits of marriage.  Again, nothing to do with religion, everything to do with the laws of the land.

So there's your separation of church and state.  The reason you can't just go with "Civil unions" is that there are churches that will consider gays married, so they are, by the game rules, married.  Look at it this way:  A straight couple who says they are married because they dedicated themselves to Artemis & Apollo, tied their hands together, & jumped over a broom aren't going to be considered married in the eyes of a Catholic.  But they are, in the eyes of the state,a nd in the eyes of their religion.  What's the difference between that and gay marriage?

And no matter what happens in Europe, anyone who is going to sue the church over it's rules is going to get their asses handed to them.  At most, there will be some flap about the tax-exempt status of an institution that discriminates.  It would be the same as if the couple in the previous example sued the Catholic church because they don't accept the the Greek Gods.

The ban, however, is completely bullshit.

If there existed someway of drafting a law that would allow gays to marry without permitting them to abuse the legislature, then I'm all for it.    They need it, they want it, there's no real reason to deny it to them.

Oh, but it's ok for straights to abuse the legislature?  The legislature is abused every day.  to say that gays shouldn't be allowed to is to worsen an already fucked playing field.  You're acting like only those pesky gays are capable of messing with the laws.  What about the christians?  they are already fucking with the legislature, but I don't hear you complaining about that.  You really think that a handful of quixote-type activists are going to change a 2000 year-old religion?

Sadly, you've fallen for the ruse the christians have established:  That legalizing gay marriage is somehow intruding upon the civic and religious rights of Christians.  The Church doesn't recognize gay marriage; that has nothing to do with the state.  If the state allow benefits to married gay couples, this has nothing to do with the Church.  There is clear church/state separation, if you were just smart enough to see it.

Still, what I want to know is - what are the gays doing?  What steps are they taking to get their rights?  Why aren't the gays doing something about their own rights before Bush manages to sodomize them all with his proposed Constitutional Amendment?
I hear a lot of "Oh, boohoo, I'm never going to be allowed to marry someone I love!  I'm going to cry, and maybe make a bumpersticker protesting the injustice!"  But I don't hear any "They chose the wrong people to mess with!  This is what we're going to do about it and they'll back off or regret it! RAH!"
WTF is up with that?  They've got the numbers, and they have several extremely slick organizations in place, so where's their oomph?  Their solidarity and forward-movement?  Doesn't a hand fight better as a fist?
They're here, they're queer - I don't see too many people getting over it, though.

Wow.  Way to over-generalize.  You're an idiot.  Or perhaps you don't read the paper.  Maybe you just don't care enough to research the activism going on in the swing states that had gay marriage bans last election.  

Not to mention, you, who decry the (potential) abuse of the legislature by gays, apparently did nothing on your own to stop the abuse of the legislature by straight fundamentalists in those swing states.  What did you do to prevent such a constitutional travesty?

It's sad, when you talk about things you know nothing about.  It makes you look stupider than you actually are.


If that's possible.

[Nikoli Volkoff]

gotta love how the first thing out of your mouth is to start slamming anyone elses point of view. Personally i agree with her, if you are gay and want to get married, fine get married, get divorced i dont care, but you should not have special privelages just because you like to take it in the butt. and ya know, alot more people might be inclinced to listen to ya Graud if the first words out of you keyboard each and every post wher"you idiot" or some such other BS.

[LMNO]

Lord, I hate the position I find myself in, apparently siding with a Greyface...

Nik, I don't want to point out the obvious, but there's a fuckload of insulting going on in this board.  A lot of it from you.  I gotta say, I agree that it's a fairly bad way to start an argument, and an obvious troll sign, but hell, at least Graud's marginally better spoken than Aini.

The thing is, I don't see how the idea of gay's gettin hitched is a special privilegde.  the way it looks to me, with health benefits, tax exemptions, and the like, it's the straights who have priviledge.

Geez, after defending a troll like that, I need to take a shower.


::turns on the hot water::

::waits 15 minutes::

Ok, who forgot to pay the gas bill?

[Yalkara]

ok, here's my issue against the pillow-biting fairies, sex exists for the purpose of procreation, and since them queens dont crank out kids, it aint right!




lmao.. damnit cant even type it with a straighface (no pun intended).

-Rev. Fuggit

actually fugit (may I call you that nancy? Because you brain has obviously flown the coop >pop<) While sex may exists for procreation, the biological urge to have sex is the biological urge to have sex. As a breeder of animals I will tell you this, when you separate the male rats from the female rats when the other sex isn't available (and even when they are)  they will have sex with each other. In humans we think because we're "evolved," for a given value of evolution anyway, that things are different. But you try depriving a man of sex (Like I did to several of my Ex's) and if you can keep him from dipping his wick without you knowing after a week he'll either be busy with his dominant hand or going totally crazy.
Dolphins, being the only other species known to have sex for pleasure aren't exactly averse to fulfilling their desires with the same gender, when it comes down to it arguments against gay marriage come from people who are prejudicial bigots who like to hide the fact that they are insecure het cases.

The current change to the law, america voted for at the election polls was one preventing gay couples from being legally recognised as couples at all in perpetuity (stop me if I'm wrong), and I will agree with EraPassing that if a religious institution refuses to allow same-sex couple to marry they should have the right. But this doesn't mean that the government then has the right to deny them the status and benefits of any other married couple.

[East Coast Hustle]

Yalkara: Rev. F. was kidding, as you'd have seen if you'd read his entire post. I know him well, and he's about as pro-sodomy as it gets.

Graud: Man, this pains me no end, but, like LMNO, I am gonna have to tentatively agree with you.

LMNO: you're right about Nik being a first-class insult hurler, but unlike Graud, Nik isn't usually looking to make a point, he's just looking to tell someone what a fucking assclown they are. I think he's right though...that's not a particualrly effective tactic if you're trying to make a well-reasoned point...it just distracts from the argument.

Nik: Graud is a fucking assclown. but he may have a point buried beneath all his posturing.



edit: BTW, Graud, you're lucky I can't reach through your monitor and break your face. You wanna argue, fine, that's what you're here for. But calling one of our smarter, more popular members a silly bitch is out of line. Smarten up.

[Yalkara]

edit: BTW, Graud, you're lucky I can't reach through your monitor and break your face. You wanna argue, fine, that's what you're here for. But calling one of our smarter, more popular members a silly bitch is out of line. Smarten up.

ooh dear... Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and she's a woman scorned because calling her bitch again only gets you a dirt nap

[Verthaine]

I've never quite understood why anyone would want to be in a religion that hates them and their way of life.We erisians shouldn't have any problems with monogamy(gay or straight) polyogamy and polyandry.

We erisians need to start building our own churches and catherdrals,so we can rake in the dough perfoming gay weddings.

[EraPassing]

Jesus, Graud, way to go.  I haven't seen such an excellent example of not being able to read for comprehension in quite awhile now. Excellent tactic of bullshit, to break up my post to try to make it sound like I said something I didn't say.  You call me a silly bitch - I think it's more that you're a silly asshat, because you obviously can't read worth crap.

Just so you understand, "my only objection to" does not translate as "I absolutely am against the whole idea".  "My only objection to" translates as the beginning of a sentence in which I describe my one and only objection to the subject matter of the whole post.

I am not against gay marriage itself.  I am against legislature being drafted for it that allows for discrimination suits against any churches that might refuse to perform the ceremony.  And it will happen.  I have already presented the example of the gay man vs. the Catholics as an example of a private organization being sued for discrimination for their religious beliefs.  If legislature is drafted specifically permitting gay couples to marry, without any provisos to protect the Churchs' rights, and a gay couple wanted a Catholic wedding ceremony, and the priest denied them, that couple then has legal grounds for suing for discrimination.  
In a country where McDonald's can get sued for a boy getting fat, I don't think that gays suing for marriage ceremonies in a particular church is such a stretch of the imagination.  And the doing so blasts the foundation of the Church's sanctity, as well as the seperation of Church and State.
There is only one reason to seek a priest or minister to perform the wedding ceremony instead of a judge - to have your marriage blessed by God.  In that way, no, a Wiccan marriage is NOT recognized by the Catholic Church - ask a priest if a Wiccan ceremony is blessed by God, he'd probably answer in the negative.  But why would a Wiccan ask the Catholic Church to recognize it?  There's no reason for it.  However, there's plenty of reasons why a Catholic gay couple would want the recognition of their Church as well as the blessing of their God, in accordance with their religious beliefs.
It's anti-discrimination suits, anti-hate speech suits, that I am worried about.  Other than that, as I said before:

...I'm all for it. They [gays] need it, they want it, there's no real reason to deny it to them.

And did you miss the part where I said the ban is completely bullshit, that same ban that doesn't permit a civic marriage for gays?

You ask me if I think that it's ok for straights to abuse the legislature?  No, I don't, and I would have said so if we were talking about straights, or abuses of legislature in general, but we weren't, were we?  We were talking about gay marriage.  I remained on topic - pesky little habit I have when it comes to discussing my views on one thing at a time.  You might like to acquire that habit, it would save you a lot of typing, as well as giving you a chance to save face when you pop out ridiculous accusations like the ones you have made.

Now, as for me working against that ban - I don't live in one of those states.  I don't get newspapers from those states - I had no idea that the ban was being considered.  I'm not alone in that - I'll bet a lot of people who don't live in those states didn't know about it, either, not even the gays.  And if I had known - what would you have suggested I do?  There were eleven of those states.  Sure I believe my vote counts, but it's not like I have the ability to move to eleven different states, vote eleven different times, and singlehandedly sway the voting that happened in each one of those eleven states.
How much fucking power do you think one woman has, Graud?
I don't think I'm overgeneralizing.  Do you have information that I don't, or is this just another opportunity to verbally abuse me, Graud?  Or are you one of those people who think that parades and protests will really change legislature?  Pfft.  You're such a disgusting toad, Graud.  You just love flinging around how you think things should be done, but you don't give the slightest thought for how to make it happen.  I have been giving this just a little thought, and personally, I think that the gays should band together, pool their resources, and buy a lawyer who will take the issue of marriage to the Supreme Court, before the Justices get replaced, and force the civic recognition through.  A law suit is a simple solution.  The same way that abortion happened through Roe vs. Wade, and evolution in schools happened through the Scopes Monkey Trial.  Voila!  No votes required, ban is overturned, Bush is outfoxed.  I think it can happen.  
But it has to happen before Bush makes changes in the Constitution, or the more sympathetic judges on the Court are replaced by asshats who agree with Bush.  Or it will not happen.
And it certainly won't happen unless the entire community of gays, and all gay-rights supporters, are committed 100%.  Even I would donate to the Lawyer Fund.