Same Sex Marriages. My Jack Assed Opinion and Why You Are Wrong.

June 19th, 2008 by Michiel

Well, California has started having same sex marriages.

Good for them!

I never understood the problem people have with same sex marriages or homosexuality in the first place. Ya, I know, some people have religious reasons and think it is a sin and God hates fags, and all that crap.

Well they are wrong. I know they are wrong because I spoke to God, and It told me those people are full of shit, and although God does not hate anyone, if It did, those intolerant, bigots would be near the top of Its’ list. But since God loves and tolerates everyone, and there is no Hell, God told me the only punishment these bigots will get is a slap to the back of the head when they reach the after life, and a stern, “What were you thinking?” (Seriously, God is pretty hip once you get to know It better, and is also a surprisingly good cook.)

I think the argument that I have heard that makes the least sense, is that allowing homosexuals to marry will damage traditional heterosexual marriages.

How!?!

Well, I never can seem to get an answer on that one. How does two homosexuals being married impact your marriage in any way, shape, or form? You’re still married. If your marriage is so fragile that two married homosexuals down the street will endanger it, I guarantee that your marriage sucks already and the gays getting hitched is not your biggest problem.

Oh. Wait. I get it. A lot of the opponents to same sex marriage are worried that if the option to marry the same sex exists, they will be forced to go gay. Because that is the only thing stopping most people from being gay, is that marriage isn’t available. Why would anyone marry the opposite sex when you can marry one of your own and avoid all those Men are from Mars/Women are from Venus issues?

Why should I put up with some bitchy woman on her period once a month, when I can marry my best buddy, and enjoy a football game in peace?

You ever ask yourself the question, “Whose dick do I have to suck to get a little peace and quiet around here?” Well if I marry a man, now I have an answer to that question. And as far as sex goes, I bet I can convince my new husband that we would both be happier going out and picking up some chicks, because as cool as this same sex marriage thing is, I need a little poontang once in a while. I know this would not be a problem, because any man I found worthy of marrying would like pussy as much as I do…duh.

I know, I know. I’d make a horrible gay man. My girlfriend tells me that all the time. Plus I have an overly sensitive gag reflex.

Seriously though, I don’t think marriage should even be a legal institution, but since that isn’t going to go away anytime soon, I totally support same sex marriages, because this is America and slowly but surely we will give everyone the same rights and treatment as everyone else. I know America’s track record on living up to that is shit, and if you disagree ask a Native American, an immigrant, a black person or a woman,…hell ask anyone. We all get screwed in one way or another, but at least this is one wrong that is being righted and I support it whole heartedly.

If you are one of those people opposed to same sex marriage, you need to pull the stick out of your butt and stop trying to make other people live by your rules. By the way, it is not hard to remove the stick from your butt, as I am sure you can clearly see it being that your head is up there too. Just grab it with your teeth and it will come out when you pull your head out. Now go take a shower. Your hair smells, and you should probably brush your teeth too.

Finally, I will point out my only reservation about whether legalizing same sex marriage is the right thing to do. The only problem I see with same sex marriage is that if you do not have sex before marriage, you could be in for a rude surprise on your honeymoon when you realize your wife has an eight inch clitoris and no vagina. But I don’t advocate saving sex for marriage either.

Subscribe to Comments for Skippy's List

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 19th, 2008 at 8:31 am and is filed under Michiel. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

SKD Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am

Hear Hear! Same shit I always tell people when they want to get on their high horse about the subject.

Captcha “chaplain Katherina”

Jason Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am

Dolly Parton said it best: (paraphrasing)

“Of course I think that gays and lesbians should be allowed to get married. Why shouldn’t they be just as miserable as the rest of us?”

L.B. Bryant Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 11:32 am

I had a feeling that your opinion would run along these lines. Good on you!

bindoverbindo Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 1:12 pm

excellent. I wish more people had the balls to say this sorta stuff.

Nutcase Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

FINALLY!!!!! Someone who has publicly voiced everything i have ever wanted to say on the subject!! Skippy please run for office Ill vote for you and im sure a lot of others will to!!! Skippy for president 2012!!!

skippy reply on June 19th, 2008 8:34 pm:

Michiel wrote that, not me. But I do agree with it.

Michiel reply on June 20th, 2008 1:29 am:

I’ll do VP.

Captcha: serve doubly

Then I messed up and didn’t enter my email right and had to resubmit and the Captcha said: pro correction.

Nutcase reply on June 20th, 2008 1:48 am:

oops my bad (just got off work and was tired) but ill still vot for skippy/michiel ticket!!!!

Stickfodder reply on June 20th, 2008 1:35 pm:

Skippy & Michiel 2012!
Unless of course the world does end on 12/21/2012

shit i just realized that whoever gets voted into office this year could quite possibly be the anti-christ.

Brina Ferret reply on June 27th, 2008 10:19 am:

I’m with you, if my hopes that america has enough racists and enough people with common sense that obama doesn’t get elected my vote for 2012 will be Skippy & Michiel… four years with a senile old man as our figurehead wont kill us but our first black president should represent the blacks who have struggled in this country *shrugs* Hillary shouldn’t have lost

and Stickfodder as long as the old man gets the position we’ll be safe, he’s too old to be the antichrist

captcha: “gabriella see”, because you were blind before, an now it’s my heart where you should be… a nice fun musical about love life and how it all ends in suicide…

A B Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Now if only that shut up all the evangelicals… *sigh*

SKD reply on June 19th, 2008 8:09 pm:

Good luck on that point. A better use of time would be to get the politicians, particularly those on the conservative side, to stop catering to them every time they turn around.

Captcha – “Crandall Russians” Russians who settled in Texas?

A B reply on June 19th, 2008 8:23 pm:

Ahh, but you forget the “Moral Majority”. The ones who will, hopefully, be shit out of luck this electoral season.

Captcha: lines Shiraz (if only I did lines of Shiraz… would probably make my work week seem much more fun)

SKD reply on June 19th, 2008 9:20 pm:

I don’t know whether to agree or disagree with you on the moral majority mainly because I don’t really like anyone currently up for nomination. And also because the Moral Majority is anything but.

Captcha: calendar press – an exercise commonly done either once a year or once a month consisting of lifting bound pages to a position above desk level and securing to a vertical surface

Lisa Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Bravo! You took the words right out of my mouth. And, funny, this does seem to be the real majority opinion and yet it continues to appear otherwise.

ArchaicDome Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 9:20 pm

The “Moral Majority” ticks me off. They ignore the entire POINT of America. I’m a Christian, and I personally don’t agree with gayness (its right-ness, not its existence), but this is America, and who the hell am I to tell someone else they’re wrong? I have gay friends. They know I’m Christian, and we leave it at that and have fun with our platform shoes and our Cher wigs and singing, “It’s Raining Men.” Whether we agree with something or not is not the point. America is about freedom, for all people- not just for some. All men are created equal, and they’re all endowed by their Creator with certain, inalienable rights. That Declaration is a masterful expression of the American mind, and more people need to pay as much attention to it now as was paid in 1776.

captcha: Mary bullish. I think that needs a verb.

JP Says:
June 20th, 2008 at 12:55 am

On a personal note, my sister and her long-time partner of 9 years are getting married, and I’m gonna be one of the “brides-men” (is that the right term?). I’m thrilled for them and I couldnt be happier.

The only problem is that my parents (part of the religious right) are very opposed to it, and have recently disowned her. Well, if they want to do that, that’s their right… it’s just really sad that they’ve chosen their god over their own daughter. And they’ll be first in line to vote for the constitutional ban that’s up for vote in CA in november. Fortunately, my vote will negate theirs :)

my captcha: pastor First (the pastor first takes the vows of the two women who are about to be married)

Eric Says:
June 20th, 2008 at 2:09 am

For some reason the anglican church is freaking out right now because someone held a ceremony for two gay priests or something, wasn’t even a wedding. Ah well.

I love the Dolly Parton line. (I’m twice divorced)

Captcha tanous beats??? who is Tanous and why can’t he keep it private?

GunnyHighway Says:
June 20th, 2008 at 2:48 am

Peoples retardedness never fails me. I’ll give no quarter or special treatment for someone who chooses to be different.

skippy reply on June 20th, 2008 3:22 am:

Glad you agree then. :)

tzanti Says:
June 20th, 2008 at 3:36 am

On that note, Metro this morning was reporting that Matt Lucas (short, bald one in ‘Little Britain’) looks set to be Britain’s first celebrity gay divorcee.

Minty Says:
June 20th, 2008 at 5:11 am

“Oh. Wait. I get it. A lot of the opponents to same sex marriage are worried that if the option to marry the same sex exists, they will be forced to go gay.”

Or maybe just their last excuse to remain in the closet is ripped out from under them. Seriously though, isn’t it strange that the loudest opponents end up arrested for solicitation in public bathrooms? I’d have thought if you were truly ashamed of some part of yourself, you’d avoid all association with it.

“Moline Faucher.” What the heck is “Faucher?”

Stickfodder reply on June 20th, 2008 1:55 pm:

I find it funny that The minor-league St. Paul Saints are giving away bobble-foot dolls it kind of invokes Sen. Larry Craig.

Captcha “Marinda 1:” really captcha a fucking colon

Fractured Cell Says:
June 20th, 2008 at 5:24 am

are you trying to tell us something here, skippy?

captcha: ‘end him”

Stickfodder Says:
June 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Its said that Ignorance is bliss. And while that may be true for the person who is ignorant it gives me a fucking head ache (and to prevent confusion I’m refering to the religious nut jobs who are opposed to gay marriages as the ignorant ones)

LT Ronald Says:
June 20th, 2008 at 7:05 pm

There is a section of outcry in the benefits departments. Such as insurance, taxes, property rights, death benefits, next of kin wars, and so forth.

Yes the far right has issues over the “moral issues”, but the people who really run this country (the lobbyists) are looking at it from the money that can still be made on double premiums, no tax breaks, litigation due to next of kin wars, etc.

Also as long as this is an issue many lawyers, judges, and media members still have a purpose other than focusing on real issues. And yes, I am not considering this a real issue because quite frankly the only reason that marraige still exists today is because of the reasons that I present above, that and it adds a whole new crop of money makers: Divorce attorneys, the worst kind of scum on this planet (one of my best friends is a divorce attorney, and he will freely admit that what he does sometimes is scumbaggish).

I can’t believe that I just wasted precious minutes of my life explaining the real issues behind this stupid fucking issue.

Minutes that I will never get back.

me, myself, and I Says:
June 20th, 2008 at 8:53 pm

being a straight up evangelical conservative southerner, i am against homosexuality…. i don’t really give a crap about gays being married or not, it’s not like they’re going to do anything more or less when they’re married….

the problem i have with homosexual marrige is the door that is opened when we define marrige as “what-ever-the-hell-you-want”

SKD reply on June 20th, 2008 11:17 pm:

How is granting homosexuals the right to marry defining it as “whatever-the-hell-you-want”

My view of marriage has always been as a public acknowledgement of two peoples love for eachother. Anything else is defined per institution performing the marriage. Christian(and other religions) churches don’t want to marry gays? Fine. they don’t have to and no one can legislate whether or not they can or should. People want to define marriage as a religious institution? Tell the state to stop performing weddings and issuing licenses as well as removing all benefits of being married from the laws and tax codes. If it is a religious institution then the state has no right to do it as per the first amendment ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ”
Now if on the other hand marriage is simply a common convention or practice then there is no reason to deny homosexuals the right to be married without also denying that right to heterosexuals.

And as far as the sanctity of marriage goes? Tell all the celebrity tarts to stop marrying and divorcing on a whim and maybe I will listen to your arguments on the so-called “sanctity” of marriage. Until then leave me alone.

Minty reply on June 21st, 2008 3:12 am:

Marriage already is “whatever-the-hell-you-want” in this society, in spite of its heterosexuals-only qualification.

Don’t believe me? Well, here are a few things that marriage is in our society:

1. Two people publicly proclaiming their devotion to one another exclusively
2. The only way to get laid without burning in Hell forever and all time
3. A quick way to get a green card/citizenship
4. Long-term roommate acquisition
5. Economic relief (splitting bills)
6. Tax shelter
7. Cooperative child-rearing
8. Income (gold-digging)
9. Ego-inflation (trophy spouse)
10. Business contract
11. Never having to scrounge up a date
12. Psychological Band-Aid (“I’m married! That means I’m not a loser like I thought I was!)

Captcha: He’s quite a “round Calabrian.” Maybe he should back off on the must cake.

Michiel reply on June 21st, 2008 9:15 am:

So… who cares? And why is this a problem for you?

M578Jockey Says:
June 20th, 2008 at 11:34 pm

My Captcha is “relating prejudice.” How gloriously appropos.

Most of my heterosexual friends are divorced, paying alimony/child support, divorce lawyer bills….. Why should homosexuals be exempt from the fun?

Screwed up the submission. Now Captcha is “always Bi.” :-)

me, myself, and I Says:
June 21st, 2008 at 4:02 am

not my point, typically marrige has been (quite obviously) one man and woman)
now, with this homosexual thing, it’s man and man, woman and woman,… you get it…

now obviously this is a stretch, but if we grant marrige status to homosexuals, then other people will want rights related to marrige, until (not any time soon, but maybe 50-60 years from now) we’re at the point of marrying 12 year olds…

also, churchs will have the option of denying homosexual marrige, but hte ACLU is pushing hard to cause those churches to lose their tax-exempt statuses

and to the point at the bottom of SKD’s post, i acknowlege that, which is why i’m not a huge “anit-gay marrige” person, because there are much bigger moral issues that need to be faught for

Tony reply on June 21st, 2008 6:05 am:

first of all there are laws in place to protect children from that sort of thing so your 12 year old scenario goes right out the window. second of all, why the hell should you care who someone else marries? does it really harm you or even affect you in any way? no it doesn’t.

Minty reply on June 21st, 2008 6:32 am:

Like Tony says, there are laws in place to protect 12 year olds. What he doesn’t go on to explain is that the reason WHY there are laws to protect 12 year olds–thus why it’s unlikely underage marriage will be allowed–is because there’s scientific data proving the damage pedophilia causes, not just to the victim, but society on a whole.

There is no scientific evidence proving that homosexuality–in general, mind you, not specific cases of sexual misconduct–has any “victims.” Religious claims of damnation are restricted solely to spiritual well-being, not secular.

That being said, if you don’t like or agree with homosexuality, that’s your business. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise. However, I will say that if you don’t like the idea of homosexual marriage, then don’t have one! Much like our parents chanted “sticks and stones” at us when we were children, there is no way that the mere existence of homosexual marriage is going to damage you in any way unless, and this is the important part, YOU LET IT.

That is, if you get so worked up over what other people who have absolutely no impact on your life are doing with theirs that you turn into a nervous wreck.

I leave you with the immortal words of Jay Livingston and Ray Evans:

“Que sera sera.”

Try saying them each morning before you start your day. You may be amazed how much easier life becomes.

Captcha: “Puzzle overcoat.” That would be kinda cool to have…

Michiel reply on June 21st, 2008 9:24 am:

Churches should not be tax exempt, they are a business like anything else, only their product is god or eternal salvation. Either way, they are taking money for services performed, and thus should be subject to taxation like any other legal entity.

I totally agree with the ACLU, that if they do not perform same sex marriages, they should lose their tax exempt status. They can choose to not perform marriages that will eventually be constitutionally protected, and if that is the case, they do not deserve to keep their tax exempt status.

Captcha: prize bedside.

Stickfodder reply on June 21st, 2008 5:33 pm:

The point of churches is that they have their beliefs that they choose to follow and they follow those exclusively. I think that it should be the churches decision to choose weather to marry homosexuals or not. By forcing them to marry homosexuals you are forcing your beliefs on them. And just because you choose to believe something different than them doesn’t mean they should be forced to believe it too because let us not forget the Spanish Inquisition.

Captcha “Louise hour” a really crappy political radio show

Michiel reply on June 22nd, 2008 5:29 am:

No one is forcing them. They have a choice. Again, no church, synagogue or any other place of and/or organization of worship should be tax exempt. They are taking money and making a profit, thus they need to contribute to society and infrastructure and defense just like any other legal entity, be they a person, or a business.

skippy reply on June 22nd, 2008 4:41 am:

I’m going to have to disagree with you on that last part Michiel. I don’t think that religious groups should be forced to participate in functions which are against their beliefs.

But let’s face it anybody who wanted to have a gay marriage in a socially conservative church is pretty much just trying to be an asshole anyways.

Tony reply on June 23rd, 2008 1:06 am:

i agree, churches should enjoy no special tax privileges. especially if they want to keep exerting their influence on american politics the way they do. if religion wants to influence us law then they should have to buy in like everyone else.

Brina Ferret reply on June 27th, 2008 11:46 am:

It’s not churches influencing politics it’s people with their own agendas who decide to use their affiliation with the church to back their cause… cause you’d have to be on drugs to believe that everything those men who deem themselves worthy to go on national telivision and speak as if they were representing us all in ignorance really spoke the beliefs of all who are christian, let alone all who have actually read and studied the Bible… anyone could spin a few verses bring them out of context and suddenly have a message filled with hate *shrugs* god doesn’t hate the homosexuals he loves us the most just like he loves the heterosexuals and the asexuals the most, but he does plan on punishing all of us wonderful sexual beings for what we’ve done

captcha: “Ancon operator” some sort of factory worker who operates heavy machinery that we should see what happens when he goes to work drunk

Brina Ferret reply on June 27th, 2008 11:28 am:

all institutions that have a tax exemption basically take money for goods done, so what you’re basically saying is tax exemption should be outlawed on that point alone. But I truthfully believe that churches should be tax exempt but also there should be overseer of the funds of some of these churches, cause while some get off their asses and try to help out the world some just waste their money on giant properties for their pastors and bigger buildings with empty pews…
and truthfully I’m a christian, but I’m also bisexual ((granted I tend not to care about gender all that much)), I have the good sense that if I ever wanted to waste my time with a marriage ceremony to say away from churches that condemn my sin

captcha: “Postmaster 50”

SKD reply on June 21st, 2008 9:02 pm:

Here is another quote for you “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This boils down essentially to the right to carry out our lives in complete liberty so long as our actions do not infringe upon another persons right to do the same. This is one of, if not the, founding principle of the United States of America. By this principle I see no reason to ban gay marriage and every reason to allow it.there was once a time when female children were considered adult marriageable women once they had had their first period. Obviously this is no longer practiced(for the most part in light of some recent events) in the USA because we recognize that they are still children and have legally recognized a common age of consent/adulthood in order to protect them from those practices. As far as churches go…. they are technically private institutions and have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason as every private institution has, except services such as lifesaving medical care. Part of the reason churches are tax exempt is to protect them from government persecution via the tax code as the government could use taxes to drive out churches whose beliefs the politicians disagreed with. But my post comes back around to a point I made earlier: If the government is going to be in the business of performing marriages, then it has no right, unlike the religious institutions, to deny those services to a segment of the population.

and a final counterpoint, you said “typically marrige has been (quite obviously) one man and woman)”. I would argue that this has been so due to the fact that until recently most people who were homosexual were(often rightfully) in fear of their lives should their status be revealed. There are still some areas where being homosexual can get you killed in very short order.

Captcha “mattress to” -mattress to where?

TheShadowCat Says:
June 21st, 2008 at 4:13 am

As a friend pointed out to me a few years ago, if you want save the sanctity of marriage, outlaw divorce, not same sex marriage.

Stickfodder reply on June 21st, 2008 5:35 pm:

Yeah but then their would be a lot more spousal murders

me, myself, and I Says:
June 21st, 2008 at 9:24 am

yeah, i’m not really a big anti-homosexual marrige person, i’m simply voicing another opinion

homosexuality doesn’t even bug me, its just another sign of where our nation is going morally

Michiel reply on June 21st, 2008 9:26 am:

Well if it is going away from bigotry and discrimination, then I think morally we are headed in the right direction.

Captcha: damage ignorant

Minty reply on June 21st, 2008 12:01 pm:

Okay, I’m confused. Here you say:
“homosexuality doesn’t even bug me”

And yet in a previous post you said:

“being a straight up evangelical conservative southerner, i am against homosexuality.”

Question: If it doesn’t bother you, then why are you against it?

Further, here, you say:

“i’m not really a big anti-homosexual marrige person”

And, yet again, in a previous post, you said:

“with this homosexual thing, it’s man and man, woman and woman,… you get it…

Question: If you’re not against homosexuals being granted the right to legally marry, are you saying you’re not against minors being abused?

I got the impression that you were against homosexual marriage on the basis that it would open a floodgate into granting other fringe groups legal rights.

I understand you wanting to play devil’s advocate to all us pro-homosexual marriage rights types, but your arguments don’t seem to make any sense. They aren’t making us think about the proverbial “other side of the coin.” Please clarify.

SKD reply on June 21st, 2008 9:07 pm:

Illustrates the moral decline of our nation? How so? Explain please because you have lost me. You say that you couldn’t care less about the subject yet you keep pushing against it.

Captcha “Meanwhile Roberts” – so what is miss Julia up to?

Andrew reply on July 31st, 2008 7:42 pm:

OMG… Do me a favor. Take your head out of your ass, pull your foot out of your mouth and think before you speak. You make the statement “I’m not really a big anti-homosexual marrige person” but then you turn around and pretty much state that it is immoral.

Here is my take on homosexual marriage:

Point of fact: In a homosexual relationship there is a masculine and a feminine partner (A giver and a reciever if you will). We won’t get into too many details here but lets just say that they don’t view each other as “men”

Point of Fact: Homosexual couples have slightly higher rates of success in relationships. The average homosexual couple stays together 5 years. That is more than twice as long as the average heterosexual marriage. Most common reason for break-up? One of the couple wants to get married, which until recently was illegal (a felony [fraud] in fact).

Point of Fact: The average heterosexual couple has sexual intercourse twice a week. The average homosexual couple has sexual intercourse 3.7 times a week.

Final point of Fact: On the average 1 in 3 heterosexual marriages involve alcohol and violence. On the average 1 in 9 homosexual marriages involve alcohol and violence.

These are some of the more common problems with marriages. From above I can see why homosexuality is immoral. They have more succesful relationships with better defined roles, they have more sex, and there is less violence in their relationships. Totally immoral.

me, myself, and I Says:
June 21st, 2008 at 9:48 pm

my whole point saying “i’m against it, but i doesn’t relly bug me” is my not-very-clear way of saying “i disagree with it, but there are bigger issues facing society so i dont really worry about it”

i simply voiced my opinion, and now i’m defending it, not nessicarily pushing it.

taking away tax exempt status from a church for denying marrige to homosexuals would be unreasonable…You would be making them support exactly what they stand against…. i mean, it’s like a less extreme equivalent of taxing a Muslim for not eating pork…(not a very good example mind you, but it’s the same general idea)

the 12 year old is an extreme example, and i’m arguing exactly what minty said, that it could POSSIBLY open the floodgate and all that stuff…

my entire point being, there is a moral line somewhere. Homosexual marrige could be what is needed to cross the line in the future.
i.e. a couple years ago i read a news story where a guy tried to marry his dog… is that the next demographic that will be fighting for marrige rights in 50 years? who knows

i could agrue my points in much more depth over e-mail, if anyone is interested, the comment section isn’t ideal for arguing.

Minty reply on June 22nd, 2008 1:39 am:

“my entire point being, there is a moral line somewhere. Homosexual marrige could be what is needed to cross the line in the future.
i.e. a couple years ago i read a news story where a guy tried to marry his dog… is that the next demographic that will be fighting for marrige rights in 50 years?”

I think what you’re missing here is the consent aspect morality regarding marriage in the US. I comprehend that for you, the only moral type of marriage is one between a man and a woman. However, I would argue that US marriage legislation up to this point has been more about the morality of consent than sexuality.

In a nutshell, it is illegal to force someone to marry against their will.

The 12 year old example being bandied about is a perfect example of this. At one point in US history, people could–and did–marry 12 year olds. However, it was outlawed because it was concluded that 12 year olds were unable to consent to marriage, because they were too young to fully appreciate the ramifications of what they were doing.

The same argument can be made about the man and his dog. Sure, the man’s happy about it, but what about the dog? That’s why so many states have anti-bestiality laws; there is no way to determine without a shadow of a doubt consent among non-human animals. Ergo, it is practical to err on the side of caution and say that non-human animals are unable to consent, so cross-species marriage is illegal.

What anti-homosexual marriage legislation is doing is saying that two people of the same gender legally recognized as adults are unable to consent to marry one another. This flies in the face of legislative precedent.

Further, the reasoning behind legislative denial stems from religious morality, from which it has departed on many occasions in the past when it was determined that religion was wrong in the secular world (for example, religions for most of their histories never had a problem with this, based on the old ‘old enough to bleed, old enough to breed’ argument).

Therefore, what pro-homosexual marriage rights advocates are arguing is that to ban it is to:

1)Completely ignore the rights of full US citizens (i.e. old enough to vote, which also means you’re considered mature enough to consent to marriage, due to the age cap)

2)Bow to the dictates of a set of morals which is designed to prepare the living for the afterlife, when government legislation should be concerned with is the secular (day-to-day living), which is ILLEGAL in the US as stated in our own Constitution!

Last point–what if there was a religion–a government-recognized religion–that stated homosexuals had the right to marry? If the government legally banned homosexual marriage, it would be interfering with the philosophy of that religion which, by the way, is also ILLEGAL in the US, again, as stated by our own Constitution.

Just some food for thought.

me, myself, and I Says:
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 am

by the way, what the hells a captcha

Stickfodder reply on June 22nd, 2008 11:06 am:

Captcha is the thing at the bottom of the area that you write in that gives you two words to type in the small writing area. It sometimes gives some weird things and we like to share with one another really weird or interesting ones.
CAPTCHA = COMPLETELY AUTOMATED PUBLIC TURING test to tell COMPUTERS and HUMANS APART
You can blame me i first did it on the story Homosexual Mustalids its the third comment.

SKD reply on June 23rd, 2008 8:29 pm:

I occasionally listed my captchas well before that if i remember correctly. but i wasn’t the only one either. I think it is a fun and interesting game to see what people come up with as definitions and expansions to their captchas

Captcha “talked 16th” yes we need to talk more about this amendment, particularly rescinding it. for a better alternative(in my opinion at least) go to http://www.fairtax.org

Eric Says:
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 am

“my entire point being, there is a moral line somewhere. Homosexual marrige could be what is needed to cross the line in the future.”

Yeah guantanamo and abu graib, giant porn industry, president letting buddies off the hook, sects already marrying off teenagers and so on point to no moral lines being crossed yet, right? Better close the barn door while there are some things in there that might be called immoral?

Captcha, the words I need to fill in at the bottom to be able to post, for me this time are: Diver scornfully

me, myself, and I Says:
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:11 am

i totally understand where ya’ll are coming from, it really does boil down to a morality issue, and obviously we have differant viewpoints on that….

i can also see you points on the 12 year old and beastiality person, but, as you can see, society changes quite frequently, and there is no telling what the next 60 years will bring…when i think about it, banning homosexual marrige wouldn’t prevent things like that happening, it would just make their fight harder (i.e., they’d be the homosexuals of the future fighting the same fight)

and Eric, i’m not denying those issues are way over the moral line, i actually think they deserve more attention then homosexuality

i’m goign to leave it at that, i’m going to alaska so i probably won’t find time to defend anything else i say

Jess Says:
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:31 am

The excuse used to justify banning gay marriage that pisses me off most of all? When people say that marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman, as established by God himself. Um. No. In fact, during medieval times marriage was a legal arrangement. Like most legal proceedings, it required another party to bear witness and since the local priest was generally considered a trustworthy fellow he was usually it. Most marriages didn’t occur in churches at this point although, as the church was the centre of all town life in medieval Europe, they inevitably gravitated in that direction. But it was still only around the 1200s that it was listed as a sacrament.

My belief has always been this: If your interpretation of your religious beliefs leads you to conclude that gay marriage is not acceptable? Then don’t gay marry. But you’ve got absolutely no business stopping anybody else from getting married. We’re not talking about paedophilia or bestiality or man-on-pumpkin sex. We’re talking about two consenting adults. Gay marriage does not hurt anybody. So get over it, and get your religion out of our public policy.

Stickfodder reply on June 22nd, 2008 1:06 pm:

Um just for the record none of us were talking about “man-on-pumpkin” sex either

SKD reply on June 23rd, 2008 8:32 pm:

And why shouldn’t we also talk about Vegiality?

Captcha “ranged Egerton” new secret weapon in the military arsenal?

Brina Ferret reply on June 27th, 2008 12:39 pm:

just cause I like to point out things people want to forget, OUR PUBLIC POLICY WAS BUILT ON RELIGION… oh my fucking holy me, no it can’t be true *gasps and falls into a hole filled with hot naked people* ok now that that’s done and over with, I’ll just say one thing, if you don’t like the principles this country was built upon do your best to go through legal channels to change it. you may becom the next california or you could do something stupid like take away the death penalty for people who rape and sexually abuse children

captcha:”beats Kankas” kankas was a naughty boy and he ended up at the wrong dom convetion… not getting to learn more about his favorite webcomic with a bit of D&D he got some fun S&M instead

Jess reply on June 27th, 2008 3:05 pm:

I’m not an American so I suppose I’m really talking more in an Australian context here. I realise that religion is more active in American politics, although I still don’t believe it holds up for a politician to object to gay marriage – and particularly to legislate against it – on the basis that a God who not everybody believes in is supposedly against it.

However, I fail to see what’s so bad about outlawing the death penalty.

Brina Ferret reply on June 27th, 2008 4:49 pm:

Simply put, it’s allowing people who have shown no regards of respect for the life of another who have sought to either destroy it through means of killing the person on killing the future and permanantly damaging the mentality of a child to live on the dime of the state having three square meals a day various forms of entertainment and a roof over their heads. It’s prolonging their lifespan by offering them free medical care that many taxpaying law-abiding citizens can’t afford to have despite their major need for such things. If you take the life of others on a major scale why should those you wish to be your victims foot the bill? There are many ways to put these dangerous criminals down, and humanely too. And truthfully if it’s legal in just about every state to go off and kill an unborn child before they get the chance to prove what type of person they could be why not get rid of a few splotches to humanity… but alas I live in Florida and as long as the perpetrator of said crime is tresspassing on our property we can legally shoot to kill… and quick question for you, there is a man who has gone on a killing spree and not just snapped mentally and killed everyone, but has planned his killing and chosen his victims and is therefor classified as a serial killer, would you want him to live?

I get your point but as I pointed out, it’s just men trying to get their objectives passed and I should add they just happen to have some followers who aren’t afraid to use their voices to back them up

captcha:”carnations of” flowers for all the feelings we express of sorrow of pain of joy but no love

Jess reply on June 27th, 2008 6:42 pm:

Would I want the serial killer to live? You know, probably not. Which is why I probably shouldn’t have a choice in the matter. Murder is murder, whether it’s at a criminal’s gunpoint or at the state-sanctioned needlepoint of a lethal injection. When the state says it’s okay to execute a murder, it’s essentially bringing itself down to the level of that criminal. It’s hypocrisy of the most sickening kind. Taking another person’s life is never justified. Ever.

Even aside from being morally opposed to state-sanctioned killing of citizens, I’m swayed by the horrible reality that no court system can get it right a hundred per cent of the time. Capital punishment has been outlawed for decades in Australia, and yet as recently as this year a man executed in my state was found to have been completely innocent. And that’s no isolated case. If even one person is killed wrongfully as a result of the death penalty, you can’t tell me that’s not too high a price to pay.

And by the way, you can’t tell me that if America executed everybody currently in prison today that all citizens would have free healthcare. Show me the correlation between the two. America does have a disgraceful healthcare situation at the moment, but that’s an entirely separate issue.

I also don’t think it’s fair to compare the abortion of an unborn foetus to the execution of a living, breathing, feeling human being. Morally, and as somebody who’s broadly pro-choice, I’m not sure how I feel about abortion myself. But I do believe that it’s not up to us to determine the value of a conscious human life, to decide whether or not another person deserves to die.

The death penalty shows no evidence of deterrence, no chance of rehabilitation, and no guarantees of getting the right guy.

So let’s throw the bastard in jail for life. And yeah, that may ring hollow. But it’s as close to justice as we’re ever going to get. And at least this way we can hold onto our humanity.

Annis Says:
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Look back into history – there was a time, in many countries and cultures, when adult men were allowed to get married to 12-year old girls. Thankfully, laws were passed to change that. See? Ideas of what constitutes a marriage have always changed and evolved, they are not fixed in stone. And originally, they were just a patriarchal society’s way of protecting property inheritance rights – they were NOTHING to do with God.

I suspect God has no interest in who sleeps with who, as long as it only involves consenting partners. And I agree with God on that one! I don’t believe he/she/it can only be reached through one path, like so many so-called religions preach. And I have to assume I am correct in these assumptions, because no matter how many times I enunciate them, God has not yet hit me with a meteor or bolt of lightning!

Analee Says:
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 am

Right on! Right fucking on!

Honestly, I think that the “Homosexual marriage will destroy the sanctity of heterosexual marriage” argument is getting a tad old. My grandmother and I had a surprisngly nice discussion about it, and while she comes from the generation that believes it’s wrong, she told me that as long as they’re not running around killing people and being assholes, she’s OK with them having the right to get married.

How can something that has nothing to do with a person destroy a person’s marriage? That’s like saying you’ll get a divorce because the next door neighbor’s dog had puppies or took a shit in its own front yard.

Besides, we don’t need gays to screw up the sanctity of heterosexual marriage! We’re doing a damn fine job of fucking that up all on our own!!!

Captcha: Roche secretary – Husbands love how the newest Ferror Roche candy tastes. *wink*

Auryn Grigori Says:
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Hmmmm, let’s see, where was that tired old “it will open the floodgates to more odd couplings” used? Oh, yeah, that’s right, interacial marriage! Another thing that was considered amoral.

As long as they are both CONSENTING adults, I say go for it. Consenting, as in both are in their right mind and agree to it. I suppose most would argue that if anyone was in their right minds, they would never get married, but oh well.

Captcha-Boarded Commodore Did she board them all night long?

Minty Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 1:04 am

More fun with homosexual marriage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk

May be NSFW for language used

ApprenticeWizard Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 5:15 am

I might note, too, that men should support their fellow men in getting hitched: from a purely dating standpoint, you have just eliminated two from your competition for a date.

And men will support two women getting hitched, too. Because men have somewhat naughty ideas involving that, too… :D

Stickfodder reply on June 24th, 2008 6:12 am:

Yeah but the truth is that most guys opposed to gay marriage are already married themselves so they don’t need to worry about dates.
And as for two women getting married the naughty ideas men have aren’t about to happen because lesbians aren’t interested in guys that’s why they’re lesbians.

Andrew reply on July 31st, 2008 7:56 pm:

Wow… Just because they are lesbians doesn’t mean they aren’t interested in men. It just means their aroused and attracted to other women. Scuse me while I think back on the (very) few times I’ve been fortunate enough to come to the attention of a lesbian couple.

Nomen Nescio Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 5:23 am

Auryn already hinted at this, but i like to make the point — the definition and concept of marriage has *always* been changeable.

it hasn’t always been “one man and one woman”; it used to be “one man and as many women as he could afford to purchase”. that got changed.

it used to be “one man and one woman, for life, until one of them died, unless the pope himself said otherwise”. we changed that.

used to be, as has been pointed out, “one man and one woman, of the same color of skin only”. changed that too. used to be… make up your own changes for the outlawing of marital rape, for allowing wives to own property in their own names, for this and that and the other; look back at history.

now it’s looking like the gender difference limitation is about to be changed. big whoop. if it wasn’t that, it’d eventually be something else — marriage has been changing for so long, and to such an extent, that you’d have to be a bit silly to think it’d stop now.

SrA Monty Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Is it just that its ok to be discriminating towords gays is that why so many people think its ok to deny them the same rights as every other American? I mean Iâ??m ok with people discriminating but call it what it is. you cant be racist or sexist anymore(or it is not acceptable to be) but denying gays the right to marry to serve their country to do the things you and I take for granted is ok. Hell if youâ??re a bigot you are a bigot Have the testicular fortitude to admit it.

SrA Monty Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 4:59 pm