Good Old Neon Posted November 4, 2009 Author Share Posted November 4, 2009 It can only be one thing - that gay sex is so totally awesome that if somebody tries it even once, they're gay for life. Right? Not anymore, there's an App for that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 My response to that would be, I don’t’ give a flying fuck what you believe, marriage is a manmade institution, and it can mean whatever we want it to mean. Then why can't it mean "between a man and a woman" to some people? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted November 4, 2009 Author Share Posted November 4, 2009 Then why can't it mean "between a man and a woman" to some people? It can, for that individual. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Then why can't it mean "between a man and a woman" to some people?It can mean that to some people, but should those people be allowed to impose that belief on other people? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 It can, for that individual. And then a majority of those individuals vote on what it means in their state. As Sullivan stated though, these majorities are dwindling every day. I lament the fact that it remains a hot button issue and a slow reversal of opinion, too. But that's how social change works. And how it should work, IMO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 And then a majority of those individuals vote on what it means in their state. As Sullivan stated though, these majorities are dwindling every day. I lament the fact that it remains a hot button issue and a slow reversal of opinion, too. But that's how social change works. And how it should work, IMO. Oh my god, that would have been an EXCELLENT idea for African-American civil rights and slavery! And women's right to vote - GAH! We should have put THAT to the ballot! Good lord, what a fucking brilliant idea!!! WHAT A GENIUS! How is my marriage going to ruin one fucking person's life, except maybe my wife's? Please oh please, do tell me, aribiter of brilliance! Edit: Not even RUIN! But even affect? Please oh please good sir, DO TELL!? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted November 4, 2009 Author Share Posted November 4, 2009 Oh my god, that would have been an EXCELLENT idea for African-American civil rights and slavery! And women's right to vote - GAH! We should have put THAT to the ballot! Good lord, what a fucking brilliant idea!!! WHAT A GENIUS! How is my marriage going to ruin one fucking person's life, except maybe my wife's? Please oh please, do tell me, aribiter of brilliance! Edit: Not even RUIN! But even affect? Please oh please good sir, DO TELL!? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 And then a majority of those individuals vote on what it means in their state. As Sullivan stated though, these majorities are dwindling every day. I lament the fact that it remains a hot button issue and a slow reversal of opinion, too. But that's how social change works. And how it should work, IMO.In matters that affect everyone, I agree. But gay marriage has no impact on anyone outside the marriage, except to their sensibilities and preferences. To me, people saying gay people should not be allowed by law to get married is the same thing as me saying because I am happy when the Mets win the World Series, there must be a law saying the Mets should win the World Series every year. Yes, majority rule is the essence of democracy, but the other side of that coin is protection of minority rights. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I cannot even wrap my head around the people in this country who think they have the right - even for a split second think they have the right - to vote on whether or not someone can have the same rights as them. Jesus fucking Christ, the balls that takes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Oh my god, that would have been an EXCELLENT idea for African-American civil rights and slavery! And women's right to vote - GAH! We should have put THAT to the ballot! Good lord, what a fucking brilliant idea!!! WHAT A GENIUS! How is my marriage going to ruin one fucking person's life, except maybe my wife's? Please oh please, do tell me, aribiter of brilliance! Edit: Not even RUIN! But even affect? Please oh please good sir, DO TELL!? First, a right to marriage does not exist in the Constitution. Second, do you believe there should be a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage? Third, I can't answer any of your questions because your marriage or anyone else's doesn't affect anything. If Texas puts anything on the ballot about gay marriage, I oppose it (since it is usually about denying this right). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Oh my god, that would have been an EXCELLENT idea for African-American civil rights and slavery! And women's right to vote - GAH! We should have put THAT to the ballot! Good lord, what a fucking brilliant idea!!! WHAT A GENIUS! How is my marriage going to ruin one fucking person's life, except maybe my wife's? Please oh please, do tell me, aribiter of brilliance! Edit: Not even RUIN! But even affect? Please oh please good sir, DO TELL!? I always liked Louis CK's take: Some ugly woman on a talk show will inevitably stand up and say 'how am I supposed to explain to my son that two men are getting married?' So two people who are in love can't get married because you don't want to talk to your ugly child? And then someone will say "well then a guy will marry his dog!" Good. I hope he blows his dog. Who gives a shit? It doesn't affect you at all. First, a right to marriage does not exist in the Constitution. Universal suffrage was not a right in the initial draft of the Constitution. The Constitution wasn't perfect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Universal suffrage was not a right in the initial draft of the Constitution. The Constitution wasn't perfect. Which is why we needed the amendment. Suffrage was in the Constitution and it became necessary to change it to prohibit states from denying the right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Denying that two people cannot do something that two other people are legally allowed to do, simply because of their gender or sexual orientation, does violate the constitution. A constitutional amendment is likely the only way we'll see same-sex marriage, uh, pretty much ever, on a national level. I believe the earth will be swallowed whole by a space-bound dinosaur before all 50 states individually pass referrendums allowing same-sex marriage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Which is why we needed the amendment. Suffrage was in the Constitution and it became necessary to change it to prohibit states from denying the right. bleedorange, I see what you are getting at, but this is an Equal Protection issue (I think), and that's already in the constitution. It's not an issue for majorities to vote on if it's already in the constitution, right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted November 4, 2009 Author Share Posted November 4, 2009 I believe the earth will be swallowed whole by a space-bound dinosaur before all 50 states individually pass referrendums allowing same-sex marriage. I believe this was already foretold by PANTHER. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 bleedorange, I see what you are getting at, but this is an Equal Protection issue (I think), and that's already in the constitution. It's not an issue for majorities to vote on if it's already in the constitution, right? I think it's probably an equal protection issue in states that do not allow gay marriage or civil unions. So I can see the constitutional argument more on the civil union side of things. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I think it's probably an equal protection issue in states that do not allow gay marriage or civil unions. So I can see the constitutional argument more on the civil union side of things. Any marriage granted by the state is a civil union. For the state to grant marriages to heterosexuals and civil unions to gays is separate but equal. If you disagree, I would love to hear why you would prefer to have a civil union over a marriage. Or, why you think they are exactly the same, and yet still undeserving of the same title. Let's say you go to a restaurant and order bacon, and they serve you canadian bacon. You want to send it back, and they tell you it's the same as regular bacon. You and I both know it's not the same, and I want my damned bacon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moss Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Did someone just mention Bacon? My swiney sense is tingling. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Did someone just mention Bacon? My swiney sense is tingling. I just finished my lunch. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I think there should be equal protection for Canadian bacon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Any marriage granted by the state is a civil union. For the state to grant marriages to heterosexuals and civil unions to gays is separate but equal. If you disagree, I would love to hear why you would prefer to have a civil union over a marriage. Or, why you think they are exactly the same, and yet still undeserving of the same title. Let's say you go to a restaurant and order bacon, and they serve you canadian bacon. You want to send it back, and they tell you it's the same as regular bacon. You and I both know it's not the same, and I want my damned bacon. A civil union or a marriage wouldn't matter to me. Call it whatever you want. Personally, I would call them all marriages. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lamradio Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Agree. Crow - That was NSFW. Please be more considerate of other readers, especially ones who are reading from work, or even at home after school. We accept all Wilco fans, and that includes young people. Moving on ... Awww.. Well I enjoyed it while it lasted... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Awww.. Well I enjoyed it while it lasted... Damn, I missed it. What was it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lamradio Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Damn, I missed it. What was it? Ah crap now I'm going to get in trouble too... lol You've probably seen it, the two chicks with bacon covering their privates. Edit: Baconini's! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 A civil union or a marriage wouldn't matter to me. So do you support or oppose separate civil unions for same-sex couples and marriages for heterosexuals? Oh, and you missed a total fox wearing a canadian bacon-kini. Tres chic, but not law firm appropriate. Sigh... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.