Oh snap
This amused me:
On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community’s successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage,” reads the letter from John Medeiros. “We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry.”
December 23rd, 2011 at 11:53 am
That letter just cheapened the gay community’s efforts.
December 23rd, 2011 at 11:54 am
Gay community in someone’s face? I am shocked.
December 23rd, 2011 at 12:09 pm
How is that cheapening their efforts? It’s the 21st Century, they shouldn’t even have to make them at all.
I wouldn’t apologize for being in someone’s face either. Any more than apologize for being in people’s faces about the RKBA.
December 23rd, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Sebastian, it cheapens the gay community because it is nothing but a whiney LIE!
December 23rd, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Er…what?
The word you’re looking for is “sarcasm”.
December 23rd, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Sounds normal…
December 23rd, 2011 at 12:33 pm
All the gay buttsecks in the world does one one millionth to marriage what the Kardashians have done in ten seconds.
All I want for Xmas is them to fall into a woodchipper.
December 23rd, 2011 at 12:34 pm
No, the word I was looking for was LIE.
December 23rd, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Now kids, play nice…
December 23rd, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Which part?
December 23rd, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Gay people are asking to be able to “marry those we love”. They already have that right, which also includes the same RESTRICTIONS that the rest of us have to live under.
I am restricted from marrying the person I love, if…
That person is not a person.
1) That person is already married.
2) I am already married.
3) That person does not want to marry me.
4) That person is of the same gender as me.
5) That person is a close relative.
6) That person is under the legal age of consent.
7) That person is not alive.
They ask for what they already have, yet they do not ask for what they really want; that being a special right specifically for them.
December 23rd, 2011 at 12:50 pm
The point is that restriction puts a burden on them that shouldn’t be there.
Marrying the person you love isn’t a special right. “Special right” is the same sort of specious construction as “collective right”.
Under your idiotic construction, the rules will still apply to everyone the same, bonehead. You can marry a man if you want.
(The sad part is you put a lot of thought into trying to create that bullshit…)
December 23rd, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Gotta love the guy who’s enjoying a “special right” that is constructed such that it happens to work for him not wanting it constructed such that it can apply for people not like him because that would be a “special right”.
December 23rd, 2011 at 12:57 pm
So Sebastian you are saying Marrying the person you love isn’t a special right. Its a collective right Hmmm? When does it cease to be a collective right??
If we went by collective rights NAMBLA ideals would be all right since they love each other…
December 23rd, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Sebastian, you can be a patrionizing ASS all you like, but my point is valid and stands. “I want to marry the person I love” could be spoken by polygymaists, pedophiles, and animal-humpers. In fact, it has already been broached by NAMBLA in their perverted quest to be normal.
I feel the same way about gay people wanting to get married to a person of the same gender as I do the 45-year old man that wants to marry his 9-year-old next door neighbor. Just because two people claim they LOVE each other does not automatically mean we should change centuries of tradition and defninition of marriage for their indignificant minority opinion.
December 23rd, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Marriage never has been a “right” period… It is one of those things the powers that be allow…
December 23rd, 2011 at 1:18 pm
I would say that I am persuadable because there is a good conservative argument to be made for gay marriage but make no mistake, the institution of marriage is older than recorded history and if you want to change the definition of marriage to something other than what it always has been, the burden is on you to persuade me.
Adopting the tactics of liberal arguementation such as name calling, condescension and unfounded accusations of bigotry will not persuade me.
December 23rd, 2011 at 1:34 pm
John Smith, marriage may or may not be a right as far as the church goes. But, in real everyday terms, the gov’t has little actual say here. Trust me…it really doesn’t when it comes to the brass tacks.
Yes, the gov’t can keep me and my partner from marrying, but it has little power to stop us from filing a contract between me and my partner that for the most part acts as a “marriage”. As long as no one in our families contests the contract and me and my partner do not break that contract, the gov’t has little to say about it.
So, my point is…gay folks will always work around gov’t as they always have. Oh, unless you want a regime that sterilizes gays and/or hunts them down and kills them. The kind of gov’t force it would take to stop gays from living their lives in a free manor should be abhorrent to Republicans, Libertarians and conservatives alike.
December 23rd, 2011 at 1:39 pm
If it makes me an ass to point out that two women marrying each other isn’t the same as marrying an animal or buggering a child (since those aren’t adults that can consent to contracts), then let’s hope I’m never not an ass.
Polygamy isn’t a contract between two people either.
Steve: marriage for most of human history wasn’t based on romantic love, either–so the “you’re changing the definition” burden argument fails also.
The reality is it’s ALWAYS changing, but anymore, from the state’s point of view, it’s recognizing a contract between two people.
If anyone’s got a burden, it’s the folks who want to argue the state should be in the business of letting straight people enjoy the benefits but deciding gay couples can’t also enjoy.
December 23rd, 2011 at 1:41 pm
A comedian once said something along the lines of:
Why shouldn’t gays be able to get married? Let them be miserable like the rest of us.
StanInTexas – there are valid reasons to not allow someone to marry an animal or child (such as animal not being a human and children being legitimately protected as they are in dozens of other ways) what are the valid reasons (other than to say thats the way its always been done) to not allow gay marriage or polygamy?
There is a difference between the legal definition of marriage and religious (christian) definition.
I always find the “tradition” argument interesting because the “traditions” the majority doesn’t like are perfectly OK to change (such as not working or selling alcohol on a Sunday, a whole new religion was started just to allow divorces, etc).
December 23rd, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Sebastian, I will try once more to explain. I promise to use smaller words so that you will understand.
I gave you a list of eight areas when I cannot marry “the one I love”. You want change one of them under the mistaken belief that it will be fair. Then why do you have an issue with people that want to change others restrictions? If it is OK to change the definition of marriage to allow people of the same gender to marry, then why are any of the other restrictions not also available for change? Adult? Consent? Those are the same societal constructs as ‘gender’, so they should be available for change as well, correct?
Two women or two men cannot ‘marry’ anymore that you can ‘marry’ a child, or a goat, or a second woman.
No one is stopping two men or two women from co-habitating in whatever way they choose. That has occured for millenia. But do not expect us to stand by and allow the definition of marriage to be perverted to appease an insignificant minority of the population.
December 23rd, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Gunstar, like I said to Sebastian, if you are going to remove the gender restriction on marriage, then why can’t the gae restriction be removed? All a governing body has to do is say that the legal age of consent in that area is 9 years old. Then a 10-year-old child can drink beer, enter into a contract AND GET MARRIED!
If there are valid reasons to allow two men or two women to marry, then there are valid reasons to allow a child to marry an adult.
FULL DISCLOSURE: In order to head off any idiocy that may arise from my posts, I am NOT in favor of lowering the age of consent and allowing adult/child marriages.
December 23rd, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Oh, Stan. The definition of marriage isn’t changing because of gays. It’s changing because of straits.
When Hollywood folks marry in Vegas then get divorced 3.5 seconds later…THAT changes marriage. When politicians cheat on their spouses a few times, divorces a few times then think it’s a novel idea to run for president and the Republican party doesn’t even blink…THAT changes marriage.
You don’t have to stand by and wait for gays to re-write marriage. Y’all are doing it all by yourselves. You want to dump on those redefining marriage, go after your own, honey!
December 23rd, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Tina, the divirce rate and the way SOME people demean marriage is a completely separate topic from gays trying to redefine marriage.
Let’s stay on topic, shall we!
December 23rd, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Tina if that is true why do you have to have a Marriage license???
December 23rd, 2011 at 2:12 pm
I also wonder tina if marriage is so cheapened why do gays want it then?? Seeing it means almost nothing??? Hmmm??? Is it because they feel cheap in your relationship too? If you advocate something that you yourself say is cheap but deep down want who are you lying to? Yourself or everybody else?
December 23rd, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Stan…frankly getting your thong in a twist over gay marriage is off topic. You want marriage to matter and to be some sacred institution…get straights to treat it that way and you might get somewhere meaningful.
December 23rd, 2011 at 2:49 pm
John Smith, a marriage license is merely a contract…to the state. I can do something fairly similar but it’s just called a contract.
Now, of course, it’s not exactly the same, right? I cannot get my partner’s SS and such. (The fact that it won’t be there when I’m eligible is another conversation.)
But, we can write up a power of attorney, power of medical attorney, she can name me as a legal guardian over our child if she dies and whatnot. So, a contract we come up with is not the same, but we can get a good chunk of the same items.
The big difference is that in the US if any member of my or her family contest our contract, there’s a good likelihood that the family member will win. That’s why gay marriage is fought for.
I’m lucky in that neither my or my partner’s families will ever contest our contract. So, we’re good to go.
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Tina, you may want to go back and actually READ the thread, as it is ENTIRELY about gay marriage. Trying to make your point by bringing in some off-topic strawman is the sign of an infantile debater.
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:01 pm
John Smith, gays want marriage for a variety of reasons and some of them are good reasons and some are frankly stupid.
From my anecdotal perspective, many gays want marriage so that the can have the same benefits straights do in life, ie, some tax benefits, health issues, child care and whatnot. For a good number of gays, it’s about being seen as normal by the straight community, which I think is a really dumb reason.
Marriage is not cheap or even silly to me. However, straights arguing that gay marriage cheapens, changes or demeans marriage is pretty bogus when it is straights that have had the sole ability to make it what it is (good or bad) in our society today. That was my point.
For me personally, I would love to get married to my partner, but I’m also not going to wail and gnash my teeth if I cannot get the state to validate my relationship. We get around the law as best we can and we get on with our lives. I have a daughter and a partner to tend to and don’t have time to fret over whether Bob down the street has a problem with my life. Sorry, but Bob doesn’t factor into my life unless he threatens my daughter and my partner. If he doesn’t, I get around him and others like him and move on.
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Yeah and gun permits are a contract with the state too I suppose…. Tell me.. What happens when you get married without a license issued by the state? Does the state recognize that marriage since it is just a contract? Yeah its a loaded question.. Marriage is not a contract.. A marriage license is permission from the state (not a right) to marry which can be granted or rejected as you gays find out so often. Collective right is a bullshit answer that people tell themselves to justify the things they want that are legally questionable according to the laws of the land… I could justify about anything with collective rights…
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Stan, infantile? Seriously? Generally speaking, when one resorts to insults, one has lost the debate.
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Tina, calling your strawman arguments ‘infantile’ is not an insult, it is a factual description of your lack of debating skills.
The topic here as shown in the original thread is gay marriage. Yours and others attempt to introduce cheating politicians and the Kardasians into the mix are strawmen designed to make us ignore the primary thread and defend an OFF-TOPIC diversion.
Generally speaking, when one (YOU) has to resort to lies and diversion in a debate, it is an admission of defeat!
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:12 pm
He is right about staying on topic tina.. The article is about gays using straight bad relationships to justify their own marriages… As if the gays do not act like other people and go cheating too….
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:14 pm
John, you bring up good questions. What is a marriage license?
It’s my understanding that it is a contract. It bestows certain benefits by the state. However, the state really only gets more deeply involved when the contract is dissolved and there is a dispute about it, yes? Divorce court and whatnot. So, (leaving the church aspect out) it is indeed a contract.
I don’t see it as permission from the state at all. What permission are they actually giving? Permission to live together? Nope. Permission to have/care for kids? Nope. Permission to share/buy property? Nope. Permission to have sex? Certainly not. Permission to care for or love each other? Holy crap, I hope not!! The license itself has state benefits attached to it, of course, but what about marriage itself does the license actually grant? Nothing.
And, to be honest, I haven’t said a word about collective rights and so I’m not sure why you keep bringing it up. But, whatever…
Would my life be easier if I could marry? Sure. But given that I cannot, I fashion what I can out of what currently exists for me and get on with my day.
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Actually, John, the topic of the original post that inspired the thread was about straights making a mockery of marriage and then blaming gays for redefining it.
So, really the thread isn’t sticking too well to the point of the original post.
A diversion, indeed.
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Tina, using others bad actions to justify your own is allowing the same people to control you…
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:22 pm
What did people do before there was a state “bestowing” marriage licenses upon people??? Divorce is permission from the state to legally end the permission for marriage… Mommy can I please quit the baseball team. This country is so fucked up when it comes to permission for this contract for that… The worst part is that so many people just sit their smile and nod thinking it is A-ok…
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Control me? Uhm, ok.
December 23rd, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Well John, I couldn’t agree with you more. This country is fucked up when it comes to permission for this that and the other. Some people though do what me and my partner did. We set up a contract to each other and we got on with our lives. We have a child, so the contract was necessary to protect her.
Again, waiting for the state to bless this that and the other thing is pointless when I have a life to live and so does my daughter. So, we get on with it.
December 23rd, 2011 at 4:07 pm
@StanInTexas
“Gay people are asking to be able to “marry those we love”. They already have that right, which also includes the same RESTRICTIONS that the rest of us have to live under.”
Since those restrictions are deliberately constructed to deny them the ability to exercise that right – they aren’t free to exercise it.
Your argument is like saying those who wish to consume their drug of choice, say pot, are free to do so…because they can drink alcohol. DOES NOT COMPUTE.
“Gunstar, like I said to Sebastian, if you are going to remove the gender restriction on marriage, then why can’t the gae restriction be removed?”
It’s very simple. The gender restriction is an arbitrary and wholly unnecessary prohibition on the liberty (that’s the “power of choice”) of adult citizens. The age restriction is an arbitrary but necessary prohibition on the liberty of minor citizens. The latter is legal under constitutional and common law as minors are the ONLY group of people who may have their rights disabled via legislative dictate. The former is illegal under constitutional and common law as they aren’t minors.
December 23rd, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Uh, changing the “tradition and definition” of marriage?
Pre-christianity, there were who knows how many cultures and civilizations that had zero problems with homosexual relationships and marriages (insomuch as their culture had marriage in relation to the form of marriage ours practices), and in many it was even normal. Most of them had the shit killed out of them for not converting to the “right” way of thinking.
Let me put it this way, and the idiots can take it however they want…
Marriage is no tradition, it’s a contract between parties, who include the parties concerned and the state itself, bestowing certain legal rights, permissions, and legal incentives to the concerned parties. These include transfer of benefits, next of kin status, various parental rights in case of death, a number of medical rights largely revolving around the next of kin status, tax benefits, et cetera et cetera. There are no reasons this cannot apply to two people of the same gender or sex.
And I swear if I hear another goddamned Domino fallacy, I’m going to bang a bag of kittens against a blast barrier until they stop screaming. The argument of “well, if you take away one, you can take away all!”, is one of the most ignorant and blatantly idiotic arguments I’ve ever seen. Let me pull another one from the bag of Tradition. In America, traditionally whites could not marry blacks. We sure as hell got rid of that restriction and tradition! The argument of “well then, they can bugger dogs and kids now!” is completely idiotic, due to the legal protections children are afforded thanks to the averaged rate of mental development (meaning children are not afforded the capability to consent legally, sign contracts, or be held liable for a contract), and animals being afforded legal protections and lack of legal capability as they are not considered persons (being unable to communicate and lacking higher functions of consciousness, they are not capable of consenting, signing contracts, being held liable for contracts, and a myriad of other things in relation to the law).
A homosexual on the other hand, is still not only a human, but is legally considered a person, as well as being a consenting adult where applicable (they still fall under the same restrictions of age regardless). Being a person and a consenting adult, what reasons are there to prevent them from holding the same contract as any other consenting adults? I’ll even propose the same argument for polygamy. If all of the concerned persons in the contract consent and agree to the terms, what reason is there to disallow it? FUCK your tradition, traditions change. Marriage is no longer a religious or societal institution, it is a LEGAL institution in which tradition matters naught.
December 23rd, 2011 at 4:16 pm
“Marriage is no longer a religious or societal institution, ”
Gasp! But what about the gold diggers/trophy wife seekers, the swingers, the six+ time married and divorced, the immigration sham marriages, and the fifty percent divorce rate? Aren’t those evidence that the religious and social sanctity of marriage is perfectly intact?
December 23rd, 2011 at 4:52 pm
……..but a Glock will never marry a Colt.
December 23rd, 2011 at 4:57 pm
>Let’s stay on topic, shall we!
Right, Because Newt’s 3 Marriages and extra-marital affairs totally do not cheapen marriage the way gay couples do!
Now everybody take a big breath, count to ten and consider why our Big Federal Nanny State Government and subordinate Big State Governments got themselves into the exclusive marriage licensing business in the first place.
December 23rd, 2011 at 5:08 pm
>I don’t see it as permission from the state at all. What permission are they actually giving?
Tina, you need to get a permission slip, a marriage license, from the state before two can legally be considered wed. I’m not going to bother checking the current state of “common law”, but last time I looked it seems to have been on the way out in every single state.
It’s basically a contract between the two that wed and between each person and the state. Except of course that when the contract is broken, nether party is entitled to the same level of intimacy that they have become accustom to. Also, Family Court and divorce law is massively biased against one gender for some reason despite all those gender equity laws.
December 23rd, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Sebastian, your remark is a non sequitor, not a rebuttal. Some things about marriage may or may not have changed over the millenia but the fundamental of man plus woman equals marriage has not.
Here’s the question that I ask when I see these kind of hysterical arguments made in favor of gay marriage: I say to myself, self, what is the percentage break down of people who are pro gay marriage who have really thought about it versus those who are just jumping on the latest PC fad?
Then I answer myself and say self, the large majority of these folks are just using support of gay marriage as a shorthand for “I’m enlightened. I’m one of the cool kids. I belong.” just like hatred of George Bush served that function a few years ago.
There are good conservative arguments to be made for gay marriage. I think you could make an argument on grounds of compassion. What I’m seeing here is: “I favor gay marriage so I’m better than you!
In reality that is the basis of most liberal argument: The liberal adopts positions that allow him to feel superior to others at no cost in money or effort to himself and then argues that his positions must be right because superior people believe them.
I’d love to have an intelligent discussion on this subject. Any takers?
December 23rd, 2011 at 5:22 pm
>the immigration sham marriages, and the fifty percent divorce rate?
oddly enough, those even with all those “immigration sham marriages” the average marriage between a citizen and a non-citizen actually ends up being more successful (as a permanent paring) then your average union. This is despite the laws that let a non-citizen declare themselves abused, separate from their partner, and still stay in the country.
I found out that useful stat when I was commenting on some wacknut feminist blog when the topic was “Russian Brides”. (Far from just wanting just equality between the genders under law, these Feminist wanted medical privacy AND free government provided healthcare AND of course in this case, they wanted a government that protected the domestic supply of domestic partners against inexpensive overseas imports.)
December 23rd, 2011 at 5:32 pm
>Some things about marriage may or may not have changed over the millenia but the fundamental of man plus woman equals marriage has not.
A thousand years is a long time. Less than a hundred years ago “traditional” marriage in Utah frequently was “man plus woman plus another woman plus the first woman’s ‘under-17′ sister” equals marriage.
Let’s bring back traditional values!
December 23rd, 2011 at 6:07 pm
I have been reading these stories in the local paper here with amusement. The timeline, where Ms Koch was apparently warned in August or so, to stop doing whatever she was doing with whomever she was doing it with, which she didn’t, and then was ambushed by the Republican leadership in a meeting away from the Capitol and told to defend yourself or quit, makes me chuckle.
Her supposed paramour was also ambushed, being brought to lunch at a local bar with a friend, only to have the Sec of State come in before they could order their cheeseburgers and beers and tell him not to bother coming in to work any longer.
I don’t expect anyone to be honest anymore, and especially politicians who say one thing and then do another. Witness the anti gun Mobile AL mayor who held a burglar at pistolpoint for the cops. Do as I say, not as I do, right?
Used to be, the Dems got in trouble with money, because they never had any, and the Repubs got in trouble with sex because they didn’t get any. I think today they’re mostly interchangeable.
Plus, Brodkorb looked like too handsome a guy to be chasing the rather Rubenesque Ms Koch, but there’s no accounting for taste, especially when it comes to office sex, I suppose. Like George Costanza and the cleaning lady, right?
December 23rd, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Up on #46
s/“common law”/”common law marriage”/g
I know they phased out common law marriage in PA, for example. Otherwise, it’s a way to get married without a permission slip from the state.
December 23rd, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Society has a vested interest in encouraging the sort of relationships that (1) do not threaten public health, and (2) are likely to provide future soldiers, workers, and taxpayers. That means monogamous heterosexual relationships. As people fail to achieve these, society has no interest in supporting their failure. These people may find themselves more happy or fulfilled, but society should encourage what is in its interest, not what is not. That’s what it comes down to. Gays want to get married? Fine, but don’t expect the same benefits; you don’t deserve them because you don’t offer anything in return. Gawd.
December 23rd, 2011 at 8:47 pm
For those asserting marriage is only valid between adults, it’s worth noting that “adult” used to mean “post puberty”. In England, in 1275, twelve-year-olds could legally marry. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) made it clear that “the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband’s estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old.” These rules came along with our ancestors to the Colonies.
It’s clear that the definitions of “marriage” and “adult” have changed somewhat from those of the 17th century. So let’s have a bit less of the self-righteous “this is how it always has been”, eh?
December 23rd, 2011 at 9:30 pm
“We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage”
Never understood what love has got to do with it, but I am reminded of such old saws as,
“A rose by any other name…”
“You can’t make a silk purse from…”
But while legislatures and judges are redefining things, can they do us all a favor and redefine gravity as something more like 9.0 m/sec^2, make the coefficient of friction between steel objects == zero, make the energy content of gasoline ten-fold, redefine veggies as “meat”, and drums as “machine guns”.
December 23rd, 2011 at 9:37 pm
I don’t know, have you seen the way those Mormon splinter sects that are practicing polygamy can pump out the babies? Of course, to sustain this you need to do something with the excess male population. Well there’s your soldiers, workers, and taxpayers right there. Just add cannon fodder to the list.
Remember, your “average” marriage nowadays splits 50% of the time and your average US female pumps out something south of 2 kids each. That’s not even replacement let alone growth.
December 23rd, 2011 at 11:07 pm
All snark aside, having skimmed the comments above, it is a bit surprising that no comment addressed the most base aspect of this ‘marriage’ – presumption of paternity.
December 24th, 2011 at 1:44 am
I’m mostly gonna stay out of this, but one thing surprises me… I know alot, if not most, of the commentners on here are some form of atheist and believe in evolution. Evolutionarily speaking, why doesn’t one of you defend homosexuality? You can’t. It does nothing to benefit the species, as no offspring can come from it. From an evolutionary stand-point, homosexuality is a flaw within a species.
December 24th, 2011 at 10:46 am
of course, they could procreate by arranging to do an in-vitro swap of gentic material (or just take one for the gipper), but then, that would still contitute reproduction by heteroseual means…… X-X and Y-Y still don’t work yet. Obviously need more evolution.
December 24th, 2011 at 10:48 am
OK….
genetic
heterosexual
December 24th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
I’m marrying my cyborg goat lover. Its an international waters Christmas!
December 24th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Why is the government involved in marriage? Where in the constitution is the government granted the power to define marriage? Seems like this is an issue that is left to the states or to the people.
December 24th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
It always disappoints me when people who ostensibly support individual rights (such as the right to keep and bear arms) instantly turn into rude, abusive neanderthals when confronted with a method of exercising those rights that they find “icky”.
December 24th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
As a note for the “bugger children” crowd…
Tennessee has a minimum age of consent of 13, even if there are stipulates and age restrictions.
December 24th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
“Some things about marriage may or may not have changed over the millenia but the fundamental of man plus woman equals marriage has not.”
Yes it has. It’s now man+woman+state. Nowadays when you get married you are marrying ALL of the politicians and the welfare recipients and the war makers and the rest of the sick bunch. It’s a big group marriage. Each marriage-cell, i.e. a man and a woman, is carefully engineered to serve the interests of the state, but each marriage-cell is married to the rest of the collective too. It’s like some sort of weird insect hive.
December 24th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
ummm…Cspradlin….that 13 yr old is *not* legally allowed to have consensual sex with an *adult* in TN.
Nice try.
December 25th, 2011 at 9:42 am
StanInTexas,
Anybody so obsessed with the topic of gay marriage as to come up with numbered checklists probably has a pretty wide stance in highway rest stops. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
December 25th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Tam,
You could have just said “he has a gun to compensate for the size of his penis.”
It disappoints me that you would resort to that.
December 25th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
HL,
I suppose I could have, but it wouldn’t have been nearly as appropos a retort to his tortured attempts at logic.
December 25th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Look, let’s take his little checklist:
…and destroy it with one substitution:
Pretty ghey, huh? Yet that was the legal truth across a big swathe of this country an historical eyeblink ago, and it isn’t any more fucking defensible.
December 25th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
“Pretty ghey, huh? Yet that was the legal truth across a big swathe of this country an historical eyeblink ago, and it isn’t any more fucking defensible.”
How does any of that justify sinking to the level of your “wide stance” comment? If you’re against gay marriage, it means your gay…if your against child porn, it means your a pedophile. I think we should stengthen the borders. OMG, I must be an illegal immigrant! Or am I a racist?
Its sloppy and its dangerous, and its just not the card I expected you to play.