This is an Essay i wrote for hire last night. it's about gay marriage.
seething. y'all might enjoy it. or not.
Gay Love
A straight string walks into a Gay bar and asks the bartender for a rye and coke.
The Bartender says: "I'm sorry, this is a gay bar, and you seem to be pretty straight."
Upon hearing this, the string stormed out of the bar, mumbling obscenities.
Ten minutes later, The string returned, appearing to have suffered an accident. He sat down at the bar, twisted and coming undone, when the Bartender asked: "Aren't you that straight string that was just in here?"
To which, the string replied: "Frayed Knot..." [Anon.]
What is the big deal? Opinions are opinions; people are people, but one would assume that sentiment can only be applied so far before it reaches the far off lands of idiocy that can cause a person to question the cognitive capabilities of your average heterosexual person. (For the sake of context, the author will refer to many things with an appropriate corresponding colloquialism, e.g. "straight", "gay", etc...) What, honestly, is all the fuss over Gay Marriage? It seems that most people have an opinion about the subject of homosexuality, and Gay Marriage in particular. Some sway towards the tolerance- even the embracing- of homosexuality and gay marriage. Others, however, seem to be hell-bent on preventing Gay Marriage. Why do these people protest such union so vehemently? Perhaps it's time to search through the possibilities and find the most reasonable answers available.
When you break down the possibilities, there are three core areas that a person could use as foundation and support for this claim: social, religious/moral and political. (The author would like to point out that an overwhelming majority of the driving anti-gay community falls back primarily on religious reasons for denouncing gay behavior.) Political reasons are weakest, and are usually a front for a deeper religious reason. The reason behind this, one could posit, may be because in the United States of America, there is a separation of Church and State, so laws resounding in religious nature are strictly taboo and unconstitutional. But if one were to say that these values are inherent in one's political affiliation, first amendment rights grant supposition and merit to these "political morals". So there lay the technical defense or premises for holding those beliefs with a political bend.
The second most prominent area used to support the preferences of straight Americans in a manner that (perhaps) discriminates against gays is Societal Norms. Normalcy; the cry of every conservative social activist. Also a relative term, subject to the terms of the person using it. What really is normal? Conservative social activists against homosexuality and gay marriage would have the masses believe that being Gay is not normal, and in suit, that gay marriage should also not be considered normal. "It's (gay/marriage) not natural," is the basic mentality of many of these social conservatives.
In a brief interjection, the author would like to address this statement: homosexuality is not natural. This single statement, alone, begs several questions, and on even the briefest of inspection, proves it fallacious. Let's try some basic logic: Humans are Animals; Animals are part of Nature. Now, among humans there are some people who choose, or perhaps are genetically predisposed towards homosexuality. If humans are part of nature, and some of them engage in this lifestyle, how does one come to the conclusion that it is unnatural? It seems to the author that if humans are part of nature and some of them are gay, then "gayness" is perhaps natural, regardless of whether it's a choice or a disposition (it seems more likely that it's somewhere in between.)
With all this in mind, though, most (not all) of these social conservatives have, once again, a religious standing behind their social conviction. This brings us to the primary reason, the central hub of anti homosexuality: religion. (Note: the author's aim is not to alienate or attack a particular religion, but the report must go on...) Many major religions do not condone, and even denounce homosexuality and homosexual behavior. The Judeo-Christian faiths seem to have the biggest beef against gays. There is no passage in the Bible that is clearer than, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." [Leviticus 18:22, KJV] It goes on, in chapter 20 of Leviticus, to compare homosexuality (perpetrated by both man and women alike) to adultery, bestiality and incest, with the penalty for all of these being death. [Lev. 20:10-16] Leviticus is also part of the Torah, ergo Judaism feels equally towards homosexuality.
Islam is a bit trickier. They seem more confused and ambivalent about what sexuality is condoned. "If two men among you is guilty of lewdness, punish
them both," [Qu'ran 4:16] is written one place in the Qu'ran, yet in multiple other places it uses as encouragement to Muslims "Round about them will serve boys of perpetual
freshness." [Qu'ran 56:17, 76:19] Homosexuality ("lewdness between two men") is denounced, and then used as an incentive plan? Novice logicians that spent the greater portion of their lives uneducated in a cave can see the blatant contradiction here.
It has been established that the three primary religions in the United States all denounce (however ambiguously) homosexuality. It would make sense then that the largest proponents against gay marriage are religious, considering how deeply entrenched religion is in most people who prescribe to a particular faith. (Not all of those religious nuts agree, though, that homosexuality is wrong, or amoral...only adding to the ambiguity.) In the sake of nondiscrimination, though, the author would like to view the situation from these religious presuppositions.
God (supposedly) hates gays (or at least gay behavior). It stands out as an abomination of the flesh, the misrepresentation of a holy union between man and woman. (Actually, sodomy of any kind is prohibited by the bible, even between man and woman- man and wife are no exception.) God simply doesn't like it. Even if someone seems to be hardwired and absolutely, unquestionably gay, with not a snowflake's chance in hell of it being a choice, being gay is unacceptable. That's why God tells us not to engage in sodomy.
Wait a moment... that seems awfully strange; it looks almost as if two prepositions were made to support each other. Please refer once more to novice logicians that spent most of their lives in caves, ignorant of everything else. This is a fallacious form of argumentation called circular logic; preposition A is made and asserted as a conclusion in and of itself, and when a proof is requested Preposition B is inserted, explicitly or implicitly restating A. When a proof of B is requested, A is restated, and you start back at A: it's circular.
But, not willing to deny a person their religious freedom, the author would like to posit a few theories and alternatives for this biblical quandary. Perhaps in such ancient times, when survival was a huge issue, much more important than it is today, and the population wasn't so dense, more importance was placed on the survival and proliferation of the species. In turn, it became incorporated into the dogma that non-reproductive sex was taboo, and therefore "sin." But a glimpse at history shows that all things change through the passing of time; circumstances, environmental conditions, social climate, etc...All effect what is and is not acceptable and tolerable. And as times have changed, to coin a phrase, so maybe should the paradigm of sexual sin.
Even assuming that the Jewish-Christian God (even assuming that Judaism or Christianity are valid) does not condone, and in fact condemns homosexuality, and the transgressors will be punished by God in the afterlife with an eternity in hell, that still begs the question, "So what?" Assuming all this is accurate- that is, God, Heaven and Hell, as well as God's position on homosexuality- what about any number of possible responses that exist to rebut this notion? Such as: God grants humans free will to determine their own fate, and hell may be the result of some of those actions, but that's their free will; or contrary, God's plan (Christian Determinism) may include certain people being gay (hey, why not? God has made certain people Saints and Martyrs, Saviors, Prophets, Etc...Why couldn't he have intended for certain people to be gay?) This is all not to mention all the subtle arguments of grey area between these two polarized rebuttals.
The moral and religious element has been addressed. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to determine whether they think/feel that homosexuality is good or bad (or, perhaps, neutral?) The conflict, the author is certain, will never be completely resolved. Perhaps it will improve, if people smarten up. Even though something as similar as racism, for example (something that used to be very rampant in American Culture,) has vastly improved in this nation in less than a century (a respectively short amount of time, compared to generations upon generations), racism still exists. There stands no legitimate or logical reason for racism to exist, but it does none the less. The author, for the record, attributes this to an aspect of the human condition called "Excessive Habitual Ignorance".
To draw a parallel, Even though Racism still exists, great measures have been taken to improve the overall situation surrounding racism. But what of Homosexuality? We can't decide, once and for all, if it's "okay" or not, but why can't we do something about the situation in the mean time? What really is the problem with Gays being able to marry one another? Another exercise in perspective may be helpful.
People who dislike homosexuality (homophobes) would say that gays (widely considered "non-traditional") shouldn't be afforded the privilege of marriage, because it violates the "traditional" definition of a marriage. Perhaps homophobes are really just looking out for homosexuals: the leading cause of divorce is, after all, marriage. Some of them say that marriage wouldn't work for gays, anyway, because "gays have a natural tendency for promiscuity." [Weintraub] Says what definitive sterotyper? Heterosexuals are any less promiscuous? What about a bunch of college guys out on the weekend, looking to "get some?" What about the rising trend of teenage pregnancy? Those girls aren't lesbians (embryonic conception requires a female egg and a male sperm; girls don't have sperm...One can't deny mathematics.) [Blamire, 3]
On a slightly more serious and less playful note, what really is the problem with marriage among gays? Anyone who is married or is planning to be married, or was once married, will likely tell you that a lot of things they expected or wanted in their partner were things they never found. They'll also likely tell you that none of that was as important as they thought it would be, what mattered was the love. Isn't Absolute and Undying Love for your partner supposed to be the cornerstone of marriage? If two men or two women possess that love for one another, who is who to tell them that they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Their marriage in no way affects any other marriage, the same way that no heterosexual marriage affects any other marriage. The marriage itself is a self contained social contract that affects only the people who entered into that contract. Just like ever other contract in existence, practically. So what does it matter if Sally and Susan, or Peter and Paul, are in that state of absolute undying love for one another? It concerns them and only them, and their getting married doesn't threaten anything else, anywhere, in any way. So what's wrong with love?
i ahve nothign agains tgay people
my former general manager is gay. he'd make fun of me for being straight. i'd make fun of him for being gay. we had alot of good laughs, and he';d regualrly trheaten to take me out back and have at me if i didn't do a good job.
of course he was the coolest gay guy i'd ever met. the first one who was openly gay and didn;t try to convince me i was actualy not stright and didn't liek boobies.
further, i'd liek to say, what wrong with making love to an animal?
or loving small childreN?
when does one draw the line on what kind o flove is appropriate?
persoanlyl i don't think gay love is natural, btu that's me.
at the same time i have no problem respecting gay people, as long as they can take a joke. i can take jabs at my sexuality.
i also have no problem beating child molestors/pronographers within inches of their lives and leaving them permanently disabled.
as for marriage. i think they msut be nuts to want to join an institution that's in such disarray. aside from that, gay people are just as abd at it as straight people. one of the first gay marriages in ontario has already ended in divorce, no doubt more to follow.
marriage is gay..,. :P
As a former SubG, I have very, very little respect for the idea of "marriage" at all. I've personally married a former roommate to his playstation, a forum member here to a picture of a band in her sig, and been married to a piece of buttered toast. Oh, and I was listening to a radio show Jesus was on where he married everyone in the audience to whatever they wanted to get married to, which turned out to be my laptop at the time. Sad part is it's all "theologically" legit, since SubG ministers are channeled through the Universal Life Church and could actually perform a "normal" marriage, if any of them liked normals enough to do so.
Marriage is an outmoded concept, and sucks pipe. If there were any good reason in a modern, Westernized country to need to be with one and only one person forever-and-ever-amen, then I'd support it. There is not. The societies we've built here are safe to exist in as a single person of either sex, more or less. There's enough open-minded people that companionship and intimacy are not very difficult to get outside of marriage.
To hell with marriage. If Fundies want to keep it all to themselves and only marry their little boys and girls to each other, let them. I could give a shit. I'd much rather just be with someone I want to be with for the rest of my life than have to throw a big-ass, expensive, BORING party over it and deal with a lawyer if I want to leave. Yeah, it's not as "stable" as a marriage, maybe, but fuck it. Stability is an illusion, anyway.
</end rant>
you forgot venreal disease, but whatever.
i'm married to the acid in my brain.
MY BRAIN!!!!!!
:P
if you wanna convince the meatheads that they should be OK with homosexuality, just show them this equation:
IF: more gay men = less competition for the girls at parties
and IF: more gay women = more getting to watch two gay women
THEN: gay people are teh win!
8)
you've never been around gay people have you?
gay people are the ultimate cock block at parties.
first it starts out by engorossing the ladies in conversation.
then i t degrades to full out mockery of the hetero sexual male.
after that they're giving tips on didlo use and lesbian sex.
horab's right. There's apparently nothing funnier than making sure heteros aren't getting any, or mocking them for being too "vanilla" if they are.
Actually, that is pretty funny if it's not directed at me.
Quote from: Generalissimo Fibslageryou've never been around gay people have you?
gay people are the ultimate cock block at parties.
first it starts out by engorossing the ladies in conversation.
then i t degrades to full out mockery of the hetero sexual male.
after that they're giving tips on didlo use and lesbian sex.
dude, I lived on Capitol Hill in Seattle...it's like, the Gay capital of the world...and I used to get invited to a lot of lesbian parites becaue my next door neighbors/co-workers/really good friends were lesbians...it worked out to my advantage quite well....
8)
Quote from: Llama Wishfart Rinpochehorab's right. There's apparently nothing funnier than making sure heteros aren't getting any, or mocking them for being too "vanilla" if they are.
Actually, that is pretty funny if it's not directed at me.
i think it's jsut as funny if it i sdirected at me, cuz i go to parties to be get drunk have conversationa dn be a male chauvinst pig.
i start making fun of buff ginos by telling the laides "you need a hairy man, a real man. what kind of man has no body hair? a girl. that's what kind."
Quote from: Generalissimo Fibslagerfurther, i'd liek to say, what wrong with making love to an animal?
or loving small childreN?
when does one draw the line on what kind o flove is appropriate?
Currently, what is wrong with the above two activities is that minors and animals are considered legally incapable of making binding decisions or agreements, such as consenting to sexual activity.
This is what I find so distasteful about people who try to lump homosexuality in with pedophilia and bestiality - either they're ignoring that legal distinction, or quietly stating that gays and lesbians are/should be similarly incompetent.
yeah i spsoe you're right. i actually knew that before hand.
however i still want to marry myself.
i love myself, and we've already agreed that if we divorce, i get everything.
There's a Barenaked Ladies song that kind of deals with that topic. It's called "It's Only Me (Wizard of Magic Land)".
I'm the "me" in "monogamy"... :D
Quote
persoanlyl i don't think gay love is natural, btu that's me.
Neither is aspartame or nuclear weapons, but people have no problem having those around.
Quote from: agent compassionQuote
persoanlyl i don't think gay love is natural, btu that's me.
Neither is aspartame or nuclear weapons, but people have no problem having those around.
Actually, I have a problem with both of those. Nuclear Weapons have the nasty tendency to want to get used, and aspartame also maeks yuo dies if you eat too much of it. Whereas two dudes humping each other has no effect on me whatsoever, unless I ask to participate.
I guess that's the thing. You can drop a bomb on my head without my consent, and you could slip artificial sweeteners in my coffee when I'm not looking, but there's pretty much no way to end up with a guy fellating me unless I was looking for that to happen.
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.
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
Quote from: EraPassingMy 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.
I did have an extremely crass remark to that gay marriage arguement, but it sucked, and was lacking in the funny.
Quote from: Major TomI 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
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.
All you need is more practice, darling.
Quote from: RevFuggitQuote from: Major TomI 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?!
Quote from: EraPassingMy 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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: RevFuggitok, 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.
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.
8)
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.
Quote from: Chuck U. Farleyedit: 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
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.
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:
Quote...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.
*yawns*
Whatever. You can try to cover up all you want, but your words are there. You don't give a shit about gay rights, you'd be happier the way things were... you're such the little conservative, aren't you?
Well, I have to go. You have fun getting all pissy that I poked your little rant full of holes. I'll read it, if I feel like it.
Ciao!
*snorts*
Typical of you, Graud.
Quote from: Graud the Greyface*yawns*
Whatever. You can try to cover up all you want, but your words are there. You don't give a shit about gay rights, you'd be happier the way things were... you're such the little conservative, aren't you?
Well, I have to go. You have fun getting all pissy that I poked your little rant full of holes. I'll read it, if I feel like it.
Ciao!
yeah, OK,
that was total crap...
you didn't even
try to make that look like something other than a total cop-out...and just when I was hoping this was gonna get interesting...
8)
Quote from: YalkaraQuote from: Chuck U. Farleyblah blah blah
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
huh? who are you talking to about what?
:?
Quote from: Chuck U. FarleyQuote from: YalkaraQuote from: Chuck U. Farleyblah blah blah
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
huh? who are you talking to about what?
:?
never mind me. It was late then and it's late now. I just got in. do you know what it's like to go to 7 clubs in the one night and have to sample everything? more of the same tomorrow,
hell yeah, I know what it's like!
except for the part about sampling everything.
I never sample club drugs.
I just grab a handful and snort/swallow/smoke it up.
8)
QuoteNow, 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 live in one of those states, and the ban passed by a small margin.
Fuck you, Oregon!
::Waves to Graud::
Personally, the only thing that can get me as infuriated as you're trying to are those Santorm heads who say homosexuality is a disease that should be "cured." Thanks for trying, though.
*would like to take some credit (again) for being one of the very first people to camapign for Santorum as a definition of the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is a byproduct of sodomy*
www.spreadingsantorum.com
8)
Quote from: Graud the Greyface
Whatever. You can try to cover up all you want, but your words are there. You don't give a shit about gay rights, you'd be happier the way things were... you're such the little conservative, aren't you?
I've noticed a strong tendency among a certain type of asshat to assume that just because a person doesn't support a minority position without question or condition, then that person must automatically be a Bad Person.
Nevermind the fact that minority rights activists often do not have a broader picture in mind, do not care about consequences, and work only for their own immediate interests.
One person, who tries to think of long-reaching consequences and cares about
everyone's rights, not just the rights of a few, must by definition be evil.
Is that it?
Well, too fucking bad. I'm not going to stop caring about the rights of the people in this country as a whole in order to be accepted by a few asshats who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. I'm not going to stop questioning what other people tell me is right and true. I'm not going to be intimidated into making bad choices. I'd rather be honest than afraid.
I'm not gay. Gay rights, either granted or withheld, do not affect me. I am not
required to give a damn about gay rights, or to work for those rights. The fact that I will support gay rights, so long as that support does not mean trampling all over the rights of other people, is sheer generosity on my part, not obligation. If I didn't care about gay rights at all, I'd flat-out say so. Why wouldn't I be honest about it? What could you do to me -
disapprove of me? Oooh, scary.
My words are there, unedited. Anyone looking to compare my previous two posts can see that I'm saying the exact same thing in both of them.
Oh, and: *cuddles Turd for his protectiveness*
Quote from: Graud the Greyface*yawns*
Whatever. You can try to cover up all you want, but your words are there. You don't give a shit about gay rights, you'd be happier the way things were... you're such the little conservative, aren't you?
Well, I have to go. You have fun getting all pissy that I poked your little rant full of holes. I'll read it, if I feel like it.
Ciao!
actualyl i do give a shti about gay rights.
fuck em i say. sodomize em in teh streets.
death to all minoritists!
Quote from: VerthaineI've never quite understood why anyone would want to be in a religion that hates them and their way of life.
For a long time, I didn't understand that either. I probably still don't. But I was watching Prophecy a long time ago, and was much struck by Lucifer's definition of Hell: that Hell is being removed from God's voice. Or something like that.
A person's religion is the path that the person takes in their journey to commune with, be close to, God. Sure, irregardless of the religion, everyone ends up with their own private relationship with God, but that religion is important - it's the path. Without a path, a person can easily get lost. And when you get lost like that, God's "voice" is harder to hear. And that's just scary.
I feel sorry for people who are stuck with that, with a religion that betrays their needs, who have to struggle on their own to find God's voice again all by themselves. I can imagine that it leaves them with a brutal sense of helplessness, of being alone. And no one can be brave and strong and independant every single moment of every single day.
I don't suppose Christian gays can help being Christian anymore than they can help being gay.
(I'm using the term "God" in the generic sense, of course.)
that's why wont; date jehoacvah's witnesses.
i ahve no time to be their guru, and i cannot trust myself to be their robot.
Quote*would like to take some credit (again) for being one of the very first people to camapign for Santorum as a definition of the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is a byproduct of sodomy*
That site, and that campaign, rock SO hard. I love that Googlebombers made that site the #1 result when the name "Santorum" is Googled, instead of the Senator's page.
Quote from: EraPassingMy 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?
churches don't have to recognize shit, though. and what a church does or does not recognize means shit in this country. to have a marriage certificate in this country means legal- not religious- marriage. typically a church wedding will include the legal aspect within the whole of it's ceremony (the doubling of a legal/religious marriage).
gays are and have been trying to get these things done, but let's
face it...they
are pretty gay.
but...to grant them the ability to be legally married is a no brainer, i think.
it all comes down to the basic concept of two consenting adults entering
into a socially binding legal contract with eachother.
and as for the issue of marriage being a defunct institution in the first place,
it think it's kinda like the military: the only requirement should be the will to participate. if you're stupid enough for that, you're perfect!
I agree with b.
There's lots of different "kinds" of marriages that the Church isn't involved in. Jeez, with common-law marriages, even the State isn't terribly involved in it. Until it comes time for divorce, that is.
Divorce is what sucks. I'd like to be able to get married and split up later down the road without leaving half my bank account in her possession and a stab in the back and heart ripped out bleeding. Child support I can understand, but that's about it. Marriage can actually be a pretty cool ceremony. 'Specially the honeymoon. And the cake.
I think I've finally decided that morality doesn't do anyone any good, and that the status quo can go straight to hell.
I'm tired of worrying about what's best for everyone under the current social structure.
I'm tired of defending the rights of a religion that would deny me my rights in a heartbeat.
I'm tired of worrying about anyone other than my own minority group. No - amend that - I'm tired of fighting for my minority group, as well, because they're as much asshats as any other minority or majority group currently existing.
All that crap I said about fighting the system within the system? Screw it.
Ensign EraPassing, requesting a duty assignment, Turd. Or Rog. Whichever one answers this first.
Quote from: EraPassingI think I've finally decided that morality doesn't do anyone any good, and that the status quo can go straight to hell.
I'm tired of worrying about what's best for everyone under the current social structure.
I'm tired of defending the rights of a religion that would deny me my rights in a heartbeat.
I'm tired of worrying about anyone other than my own minority group. No - amend that - I'm tired of fighting for my minority group, as well, because they're as much asshats as any other minority or majority group currently existing.
All that crap I said about fighting the system within the system? Screw it.
Ensign EraPassing, requesting a duty assignment, Turd. Or Rog. Whichever one answers this first.
I'm neither Turd nor Rog, but I'd like to give a hearty "Hear, hear!" to that. Also, I'd like to add a bit of a quote from Terrence McKenna, who happened to be making sense at this one point in time:
Quote. . .what is real is you and your friends, and your associations, your highs, your orgasms, your hopes, your plans, your fears.
And we're told no, we're unimportant, we're peripheral. Get a degree, get a job, get a this, get a that, and then you're a player.
You don't even want to play in that game.
It's all well and good to be concerned about society at large, but where we can actually make an impact is in our direct relationships.
I also think my pineal gland is talking to me, finally. Or maybe I'm just ready to start listening.
I'm ripping off that quote, Llama. I might write a rant. And say that one three times, fast.
What's a chick gotta do to get a Goddessparent in this joint?
my pineal gland works perfectly. who else in tehre is there to talk to?
NSRA INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
CLASSIFIED: EYES-ONLY
FROM: NSRA HIGH COMMAND and we do mean High command...
TO: LT. ERA PASSING
RE: YOUR ORDERS
ODERS MAY OR MAY NOT BE NON-MANDATORY, DEPENDING ON YOUR WILLINGNESS TO CARRY THEM OUT
ORDER #1: PLEASE PROCEED WITH ALL DUE HASTE TO THE FOLLOWING LOCATION: JIMMY Z'S NIGHTCLUB, 1701 HEWITT AVE. EVERETT, WA. ARRIVE BY 2100 HOURS ON 12/31 FOR THE NSRA NEW YEARS EVE PARTY, FEATURING THE BEST BAND IN THE WORLD.
ORDER #2: PLEASE MAKE IMMEDIATE PREPARATIONS FOR OPERATION "FUCK WITH THE COUNSELORS AT YOUR SCHOOL"
THIS MAY INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO:
SWITCHING STUDENT TRANSCRIPTS
SWAPPING OFFICE DOOR NAMEPLATES
SPIKING THE WATERCOOLER WITH CUCUMBER JUICE
THE NSRA LEAVES THE DETAILS OF THE OP TO YOUR DISCRETION, AS WE HAVE FULL FAITH IN YOUR ABILITIES IN THIS AREA.
PLEASE REPORT BACK TO HIGH COMMAND FOR POST-OP DEBRIEFING ONCE THIS HAS BEEN SUCESSFULLY COMPLETED.
THIS MESSAGE WILL SELF-DESTRUCT IN 23 SECONDS.
DO NOT TAKE ORALLY OR AS A SUPPOSITORY.
Let the fun begin! :D
What about using a brush to spread vaseline and chlorine on everything hands touch?
Rashes are nice and the vaseline kills some of the chlorine smell...
*memorizes the orders with tears of excitement*
Looks like my New School Term Resolution about not blowing things up has gone buh-bye. Now, how to get into the labs....
on second thought, you're all stupid.
by the way, what the fuck is the point in trolling me?
i mean, i'm flattered that someone think highly enough of me to troll me,
but, i really don't think i'm that important. am i?
i don't think so.
Quote from: Saint Bastardon second thought, you're all stupid.
by the way, what the fuck is the point in trolling me?
i mean, i'm flattered that someone think highly enough of me to troll me,
but, i really don't think i'm that important. am i?
i don't think so.
Who's trolling you?
Quote from: Saint Bastardon second thought, you're all stupid.
by the way, what the fuck is the point in trolling me?
i mean, i'm flattered that someone think highly enough of me to troll me,
but, i really don't think i'm that important. am i?
i don't think so.
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!? 8)
It's called a meta-troll guys, chill out.
[EDIT: Unless your responses were trolling him BACK, in which case IHBT, but in that case I'll say this was a meta-meta-meta troll.]
/me addes new assholes to the previosu 4 posters.
:lol:
Quote from: Llama Wishfart RinpocheIt's called a meta-troll guys, chill out.
[EDIT: Unless your responses were trolling him BACK, in which case IHBT, but in that case I'll say this was a meta-meta-meta troll.]
meta-troll?
IHBT?
please clarify...
i'll clarify yo momma dude.
Quote from: Chuck U. FarleyQuote from: Llama Wishfart RinpocheIt's called a meta-troll guys, chill out.
[EDIT: Unless your responses were trolling him BACK, in which case IHBT, but in that case I'll say this was a meta-meta-meta troll.]
meta-troll?
IHBT?
please clarify...
I hate explaining trolling, because in doing so one runs into the chance that one is BEING trolled into EXPLAINING it, but here:
Quote from: http://www.kibo.com/kibopost/meta_trolling.html
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Re: An Anthropological Taxonomy of Usenet Posters?
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet, sci.anthropology, alt.religion.kibology
Organization: HappyNet Headquarters
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 07:36:55 GMT
In sci.anthropology, Geoffrey Watson (gwat@cs.uq.oz.au) wrote:
>
> dgc3@kimbark.uchicago.edu (dana galatea copper) writes:
> >
> >kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) emits:
>
> >>Desmond Morris, pop anthropologist and author of "The Naked Ape" (and
> >>"Manwatching" and "Catwatching"--in which we learn that Morris is
>
> >Oh, Kibo. Usually I take this kind of thing with a grin, but this one
> >is too much. Desmond Morris is not the author of "The Naked Ape".
> >You're thinking of Richard Darking, who wrote it as a sequel to "The
>
> 1968 The naked ape Desmond Morris
> 1969 Naked ape or Homo sapiens? John Lewis and Bernard Towers
> 1976 The selfish gene Richard Dawkins
Um, Geoffrey, what we have here is a phenomenon called "trolling".
Dana G. Cooper has asserted dominance here in a ritualized fashion by
getting you to admit that you know something, which means she wins
because she tricked you into showing off your knowledge, which in our
anti-intellectual society moves you down the pecking order... (Hope it
didn't hurt.) This "trolling" is actually an evolutionary vestige of
the time when human beings were still evolving from spiders* and used it
as a mating ritual. I think Dana likes you.
My posting was a "meta-troll", in which I posted something with a
completely straight face in hopes that someone else would try to make it
look like I was being sarcastic. I evilly manipulated Dana with my
sociopathic charms into HAVING SOME FUN--whether Dana wanted to or not!
There are also "meta-meta-trolls", which are sort of complicated to
explain (if they even exist--I might be lying about whether there is
such a thing as a meta-meta-troll solely to get people to try posting one)
and then there's "accidental trolling" and "self-trolling".
Self-trolling probably will never occur in a group like
sci.anthropology, though--it only happens in places where people are so
clueless that they can confuse themselves, like alt.sex.
*Reference: Star Trek: The Next Generation "Genesis", where Barclay
turns into a spider because he's devolving. They have a science
consultant for the show so everything on it must be real. Also, I too
believe that humans evolved from spiders. <-- TROLL
-- K
IHBT is an acronym for I Have Been Trolled, which is itself a derivative of YHBT (You Have Been Trolled).
My name is Dr. Sepia
I specialize in trolls.
well, hello Dr. Sepia!
I'm here for my checkup...
8)
/me chucks check
ahahahaaaa....
Yes, well. No trolling indicated in preliminaries... yet...
::straps chuck to a girder and ct scans him::
Let's just wait now and see, hmm?