Your A Idiot: Gay marriage is gay
Maryland has finally taken the leap to allow same-sex couples to take the plunge.
The Maryland House of Delegates voted 72-67 to pass the Civil Marriage Protection Act of 2012 on Friday night. A similar bill died on the House floor last year, much to the chagrin of Gov. Martin O’Malley. Last year’s bill passed in the Maryland Senate though, and the chamber is expected to do the same with this year’s incarnation.
I am proud of my state for allowing the LGBT community to be just as miserable as the rest of us breeders. Those opposed to the potential law protecting same-sex couples’ ability to marry are on the wrong side of a civil rights battle. Forty-five years from now, those in opposition to this inevitable change will look very similar to those bitching about Loving v. Virginia, the unanimous 1967 Supreme Court decision that stated that anti-interracial marriage laws were unconstitutional. Apparently Virginia was not for Lovers back then.
I find it strange that many of those voting against the act are representatives from the heavily Democratic, and predominantly black, Prince George’s County. Prince George’s is the wealthiest per capita and best-educated majority-black county in the United States. Yet the Prince George’s representatives voted against the bill, claiming to stand for their constituents. Shouldn’t they be at the front of the line for civil rights?
Many of the residents of Prince George’s and the more rural parts of the state will claim that they are in opposition because of their deep, religiously-rooted politics. Point to the Bible and I will point to the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Want to ignore our must important political document? Fine. I can work within the constructs of your holy scriptures. Want to quote Leviticus? I hope that none of you have ever eaten shrimp or worn Under Armour, since both are an abomination. Want to quote Corinthians? I hope that none of you have ever held false idol, had pre-marital sex, or an extra-martial sex. The hypocrisy of such individuals is conveniently ignored.
If any of my black brothers and sisters want to continue to thump the Bible, let me remind you that not so long ago that the same book was used to justify slavery. The Story of Cannan, anyone?
Really, it’s just because people find the idea of two dudes getting married “icky.” Two women getting married is, of course, hot. Hypocrites. I mean, I admit, Santorum (the Internet definition – a frothy mixture of anal lube and fecal matter) is icky. But it’s just as icky in a heterosexual relationship as it is in a homosexual one.
Let’s just for a moment ignore the supposed moral ambiguity of the proposed law and focus on the pragmatic implications. We continue as a state and a nation to struggle to make ends meet (I know plenty of gay dudes that love to meet ends, and meat ends). There are budget shortfalls left and right.
Do you realize how much Maryland stands to gain from the tax boost of thousands of same-sex weddings? Out-of-state gays will flock to Maryland. Ingaysion! It’s much less scary than a Linvasion — when Jeremy Lin shows up and dunks on your ass.
I can imagine the floral arrangements now. Flowers, flowers as far as the eye can see. Two wedding dresses? That’s $10,000 ($600 in taxes) right there. Support marriage equality; support your bank account. That’s unless you’re gay, then good luck keeping up with the Smith-Joneses.
Opponents will petition to have a proposition on the ballot, much like California’s Prop 8. The Mormons poured a ton of money into California to pass the measure, and it passed. Mitt Romney and his buddies can stand to part with a few more dollars. Send Maryland your blood money! Luckily, a Federal Court recently overturned Prop 8. And I’m hoping that our electorate is wiser than California’s and can save our court system’s time by defeating the ballot initiative when it eventually arrives.
Follow the Idiot @youraidiot or like him on facebook!
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Oh is that how it is?
Well then naturally you will have such similar convictions when it comes to issues such as incestuous marriage, and polygamy. After all, who deserves to tell a brother and a sister, both independent consenting adults fully capable of making personal decisions, that they can’t make a family of their own. I mean think of how many people marry people who are similar to their parents. Instead, they could just go ahead and marry mom or dad. Or who should say that, given that we are throwing out the one man one woman requirement, we need a one on one requirement at all? I mean come on, there sure is evidence against our desire for monogamy, isn’t there? People cheat all the time. Legalize unlimited marriage partners, and that’s the end of that. Really, it’s not possible to follow the line about we’ll legalize for any consenting adults and just stop at gay marriage. This proposed bill doesn’t go nearly far enough for that. One redefinition of marriage isn’t the end of marriage. It’s the inevitable next ten that will.
It’s funny also that I’m supposed to get excited over a little more sales tax. Except wait, a huge chunk of what these couples want are tax and other benefits. Benefits that at some point, someone pays the bill for. No way a little extra business for chapels and some sales tax makes up for the strain on the system the marriages would actually inflict. Not that this alone is necessarily the big issue, but if you’re going to bring up money, please consider things beyond the basics of sales tax. You’re making yourself look pretty ignorant.
As for your threat to quote the Constitution…let me do it for you:
“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.”
Note how no phrase of our most important federal document does anything to say that religious voters can’t or shouldn’t vote their moral compass any more than atheist voters may vote by their moral compass. All it says is that we won’t all sign up under one state directed religion, and that religion is protecting from state persecution. You won’t find the words separation of church and state anywhere in there.
Not convinced? Hoping I’ll talk about leviticus next? Don’t need to. (although your comment on Corinthians is spot on…straight extramarital sex is by no means any less sinful according to traditional Christian teaching than any other form, nor will you find the Church arguing that. Funny how that’s what opponents bring up, that and divorce rates, when the Church will not allow that either. Technically under their rules, even if divorced by state, you aren’t unmarried, and moving on constitutes adultery, but that’s neither here nor there.)
But right, I don’t have to. Because this is the state of MD we’re talking about. And that state has a constitution too! And I bet you aren’t expecting what it’s about to say in Article 36:
“Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place.”
Got that? It is in fact entirely constitutional in MD to base your governmental work (proceedings) by invoking a deity’s aid. It’s unconstitutional to try and prevent that.
Believe it or not, I’m not saying we shouldn’t legalize gay marriage. All I’m saying is the answer isn’t as obvious or as set in stone as you are making it out to be. People are not necessarily completely ignorant for disagreeing with you. More than likely this will go to a vote, and since no state referendum has ever upheld gay marriage, I wouldn’t hold my breath for our electorate to have your “wisdom” there. And I don’t think one court action, out of 30 states with laws prohibiting same sex marriage necessarily makes a MD referendum vote shooting down the measure doomed to be overturned by state courts. That just goes against the numbers. But hey, we’ll see, I just think there’s a bit more complication than “This is right, you had better agree with me or you are ignorant/hateful/blah blah blah”
You mad, bro?
That’s cute. Not at all. Just pointing out some things you overlooked. There’s a comment box for a reason, surely it’s better to use it as such than a one liner.
Also, who says I’m a bro? Or that even if I am male, that I subscribe to such gender roles and would find it acceptable to be addressed as brother. Quite insensitive.
You mad.
Towerlight not so good off the cuff, eh?
You are too,
Wow! The most complicated assertion of the gay civil marriage rights and equality movement is why ANYONE would think there’s ANY justifiable reason to oppose it.
Sales tax increases isn’t the point Your A. Idiot made. See, businesses NOT associated with the govt. pay employees in, not of, MD to sell them. Hotels pay employees to make our beds and clean our rooms as we celebrate our weddings. The flowers we decorate our centerpieces with pay for someone’s bills and……you guessed it, food. I believe you understand my point.
Speaking, again as I must, of points, which one were you attempting to make by citing the buybull’s proclamations in Leviticus? You clearly need to be told Your A. Idiot was decrying all BS societal obligations perceived subordinates should follow. Was that more illuminating?
Wake up,……human. This is the new civil rights movement. ALL who are not on board are part of the problem. The solution will, like sunlight-and what I use at work to make you or your significant other’s hair decent looking, bleach the dirt right out of this morass of fearful BYE-GOATS, HOMOPHOBES AND HETEROSUPREMACISTS!!!!!!!
Trust me when I state you WILL NOT want a single spec of dirt under your hands after this is over. Look at the racists of days past and present and that is exactly what will be said of those with any hand in opposing LGBT equality in any way, shape or form.
That is all.
You (the male) are not gay. You are human. Being homosexual is just an escape. Society has expectations for what real men and real women should be like. And all humans cannot meet those expectations. So to escape, they convince themselves that as a male, he must not be a real man because he is not meeting the expectations for being a man. That is why there are so many homosexuals today. If the wife thinks that the husband is not athletic or tough enough, the husband begins to doubt his own sexuality. A woman would not understand but a similar male companion would. That’s because the woman is looking for a real man that society defined. But because you did not exactly fit that definition, you lean on the other as the alternative and escape from the wrath of the woman.
When a boy or a girl is young, society also has expectations for what a boy or a girl should act like. If they do not act based on expectations of society, then they are teased and begin to doubt their sexuality. It is normal for children and teens to have a sexual identity crisis. Then they believe to think they are different.
If society is not so judgmental about what should a man or a woman (boy or girl) be like, then there will be almost zero homosexuality today. Because a woman is so judgmental as to what a man should be, the man who does not fit the bill becomes gay. Because the man is so judgmental as to what a woman should be like, the woman who does not fit the bill becomes a lesbian.
If this continues, the world will be filled with gays and lesbians when in reality everyone are straight humans. If people would stop judging the young and people in general on what a real man and real woman should be like, then homosexuality would not be the chosen lifestyle.
MI,
Your line of thinking doesn’t make sense. Homosexuals have been around since the beginning of time. Sure, in earlier eras it was much harder to be out or find any sort of positive gay role-models living an open life. But, homosexuals existed, closeted or not. There are no more gay people today than there have always been. Ever heard what ancient Greek men did together?
With your line of thinking we can also say, “You (the male) are not heterosexual. You are human.” Sounds like you’re saying humans aren’t sexual at all. That’s just not true for most of us. Some guys like guys. Some girls like girls. It’s really, really as simple as that. I don’t understand why it’s so hard for people to get that and accept it.
By saying that homosexuality is an “escape” you are showing us your bigoted self, loud and clear. What makes homosexuality an escape? Who says homosexuals aren’t real men? Give me a break. It takes a much bigger man to be honest and live an honest, open life. And, gay relationships have responsibilities and challenges just as tough (or more so)as straight relationships. We can love, we can have partners, families, jobs, fights, responsibilities, etc. No one’s “choosing” to be homosexual because it’s somehow easier than being heterosexual. Are you kidding me?? You think someone would choose the crap homosexuals have to put up with from the bible-fearing, bigoted, self-righteous conservatives in the US to escape a heterosexual life? The heterosexual life is a cakewalk in comparison to being gay.
I think you’ve got it all backwards. If I need an escape as a gay man, a straight relationship would be the easy road, the clear escape. But, I’m choosing to be myself, to be honest, open, caring, loving, and bound to my family and responsibilities.
People are people. We are human. Gay people exist despite whatever social elements you describe. The social elements only make it easier or harder to deal with being gay.
TJ: Why is society (the world) so obsessed with labeling? That is what is wrong with society, there is a label for every anomaly. There is this perfect human and if anyone is different from this perfect human, there is a label. You just labeled me a bigot and I do not see myself one. If I were to surrender to society’s labeling and have to look into myself, I can be labeled as Asperger’s, ADD, OCD, even gay, sure bigot also according to you if I surrender to society, bipolar, it is endless. If all of the self-proclaimed straights are eliminated from this world and only the gays exist, however there is no labeling at all, just act like everyday humans, what do you think will happen? The world will move on like humans and procreate. But the world is so obsessed with labeling, looking for people’s anomaly (in reality there is none), looking for something wrong with each person as if trying to understand the person within as to why they are different from everyone else. They are looking for why they fall into categories when in fact humans are unique from each other. If you leave it up to nature, when a straight woman and man gets married, when they get really old the woman starts looking and acting like a man and the man starts becoming more feminine with emotions. I have seen enough seniors (relatives and others) to witness this. The transformation is incredible. But these old couples just move on not even thinking about it that the roles reversed. I say stop labeling people and accept that each person is unique and do not have anomalies (as society may see it). Sure some guys act effeminate and some girls act manly. That’s life. No need to label it and expect that there is some sort of an anomaly. Humans are humans. If I were to surrender to society’s labeling since I was a child, I would be living the gay life by now because society defined people like me that way. And I would be pressured to be one also as I was teased for being different. I refused to be labeled. I am just a human like everyone else. If I do not fit as the perfect human, so what. I don’t need to go through the drama of self-discovery and my life is so hard for being different. I just know that the world is obsessed with labeling because they think if they find a label, they can understand themselves better or why society treats them differently. Who cares. You are human to me. Life moves on.
The reason that incestuous relationships are illegal is because of the genetics involved and the resulting offspring’s chance of having some kind of deformity.
The opposition to homosexual relationships is based upon bullshit logic like “it’s a choice” (no it fucking is not – who would CHOOSE to be discriminated against?) or upon the bible.
(I also personally don’t have an issue with polygamy and I think it should be legal between consenting adults, if that’s what they want to do and if that’s what makes them happy (like on Sister Wives!), but obviously people shouldn’t be FORCED into it like they are in some religions.)
This is a civil rights issue and should be treated as such. If you’re against equal rights for all, you’re an asshole.
Every single man has some female qualities and every single woman has male qualities. If that does not come out now, it will come later in life. Society is so obsessed with labeling and this supposedly perfect human (male qualities and female qualities). Then the person tries to discover oneself and thinks all conflicted from what society expects today. I have seen children who were teased since kindergarten for acting like the opposite sex. So what? That’s part of life. As far as I know, everyone has gay qualities and are still humans. Some more than others, but so what. So, don’t be a victim of society’s labels. We are all humans.
Hehe, you guys are funny.
Moose, people choose to be discriminated against all the time. They choose this based on some other gain. They join a group or select a position where they know people will abuse them for it, because they find something worthwhile, more worth it than just being left alone and not having said experience in their life. I’m not saying gay is a choice, I wouldn’t know. I am saying that the argument that “why would someone choose something that could have some negative effects” is bullshit. Happens all the time.
Besides, why does innate desire alone qualify? Biologically, well after marraige, a man will still be attracted to good looking women (or men) but it sure as hell isn’t socially acceptable currently for him to act on that outside of his marriage. So if biology based desire is the only criteria, again, polygamy MUST be legalized.
Same goes for my other point. It isn’t a person’s choice to find their sister/brother/mom/offspring attractive. They just do. Why would a pedophile CHOOSE to be attracted to a group that will get them discriminated against?! (to the tune of prison for them, makes even less sense)
My point here is not to equate same sex relationships to these other ones. My point is to show that those same typical arguments can be easily used for groups you won’t legally legitimize either, so it isn’t as clear cut as you believe.
As for equal rights, we have them! A gay man nor a straight man can marry another man. Same goes for women. There isn’t one guy who has a right another has. This is about redefinition of social norms because some people don’t agree it should be so constrained for EVERYBODY. After all, maybe I want to marry my same sex friend for some of those marriage benefits. Who is to say I have to be attracted to him? That’s fine. But it has to be legislated the regular way. That can’t be skipped because this need is more worthy than other needs. I could all kinds of things as civil rights and demand it not go up to a vote. That’s not how a republic works though.
Just because a Black man prefers to have sex with White women does not make him White deep inside and go “I am really born to be White. It is what I am trapped in this Black body. I have always been attracted to White girls since I was young.” He is still Black. But White women happened to be his preference based on several events that he experienced and/or saw in his life. It is all a matter of preference.
If an adult male wants to have sex with children, is he born to have sex with children until adulthood? That is his preference and he goes with it. Perhaps, his thingy is too small for adults or he has this repressed childhood experience that he missed or could not do with the younger girls at the time. We do not know. Technically, all men and women can be attracted to the same sex and opposite sex and even very young people, but there are certain laws and values that a person follows. All people are born sinners, but each one of us do our best not to sin greatly based on values. If you live people alone with no rules, there will be a lot of death, destruction and rape.
Some of these comments are pretty insane but I love the article. Well said!
Why not get the government out of Marriage? why most I get a license from them to marry? The government needs to stop taking sides on these kind of issues.
Some of these people on this thread have gone full retard.
Let’s all be Waterford Crystal clear about what’s really going on here: The fate of both Maryland and New Jersey… and the entire earth… hang in the balance. Gay marriage is a cause for great alarm and may very well be the first warning sign of The Rapture.
At this very moment, innumerable married gays around the world are committing acts of what I have taken to calling “homoterrorism”. It’s true. No, really, I’m not kidding.
And The Department of Homeland Security had better beef up their staffing and be on the lookout for same-sex love acts calculated to destroy Traditional Marriage. Or else. For example, if a large number of lesbians were to hug one another, it could cause the collapse of the Greek economy. (See. I told you.). A sufficient volume of men kissing other men could end with Michelle Bachman losing the GOP nomination. In terms of US national security, we clearly have a “fuchsia-level” alert situation (which is super-high). Make no mistake; it won’t be easy. These homoterrorists have gotten pretty smart and learned how to blend in with normal people.
To educate yourself more fully on this topic, please visit http://www.mymarriageruinsyours.com.
If you read the entire article, you’d realize you fucktards were proving his point. The gay marriage argument is stupid because there’s no reason to have this argument. Everyone deserves to be married. Sorry not everyone in America is a religion bigot like you.
“You’ve confused a ‘war on your religion’ with ‘not always getting everything you want.’”
— JON STEWART, The Daily Show
I love lamp?
I love you, PeteG. Can we get gay married?
It is very, very troubling that people on here are equating homosexuality with pedophilia. The difference is that if someone has sex with a child, they are harming a child who is not able to consent. If two men or two women who are in a consenting relationship want to have sex or get married, then great for them! To say that a person who is attracted to children is equitable to someone who is attracted to another, consenting adult is despicable and offensive not only to homosexuals but to victims of child abuse, as well.
Ingaysion
lol.
I wish I was a lesbian
It would seem one group is determined to shove there view of morality down the others throat. Why not just end the debate and take government out of marriage, that way its not up to them who can get married. It is up to the individual what marriage means to them.
Just a minor point; the 1st Amendment works two ways. Marriage is pretty heavily established as a religious ceremony.
If you truly wanted to defend the 1st Amendment, you would argue that the govt should not give marriages to anyone, instead issue only civil unions to both straight and gay couples and leave marriage to the churches.
That would truly respect the 1st Amendment.
I skimmed the other comments on here but it really would be physically painful for me to respond.
So instead, I’m going to point out a quote from Judith Butler that I love that describes the awkward relationship many angry straight people have towards gays and issues like gay marriage (keeping in mind that none of them gave a sh*t when the divorce rate was rising and none of them cared about their bible til now).
“When they were debating gays in the military on television in the United States a senator got up and laughed, and he said, ‘I must say, I know very little about homosexuality. I think I know less about homosexuality than about anything else in the world.’ And it was a big announcement of his ignorance of homosexuality.
Then he immediately launched into a homophobic diatribe which suggested that he thinks that homosexuals only have sex in public bathrooms, that they are all skinny, that they’re all male, etc, etc. So what he actually has is a very aggressive and fairly obsessive relationship to the homosexuality that of course he knows nothing about. At that moment you realise that this person who claims to have nothing to do with homosexuality is in fact utterly preoccupied by it.”
Perhaps, those of you who for some reason can’t contain your hatred when discussing gay marriage (which is, indeed, inevitable), you should think about this quote while fapping tonight. Sweet dreams.
Again we argue over this issue when John and I have put forth an solution that should make everyone happy.
Yeah your solution would be a fantastic one if it was at all feasible. You want to tell me that the privileged are just going to give up their privileges for a bunch of gays? Sorry, as one of those gays I know the world doesn’t work like that. What we’re seeing is the privileged clinging to that higher position – “marriage”, not a “civil union” – with all their might.
I 100% agree that everyone should have an equal ability to join together and then religion can privilege whomever it wants separately. But where was this genius idea before the gays wanted a piece of the pie?
I’m going to go the practical route that works to bring gay marriage in line with an already entrenched practice rather than advocating for a brand new one that would never happen.
But then you are just as gulity of pushing your morality on others as they are on you.
How so? My morality is based in law; theirs in religion. They can think that gays are horrible and disgusting and blah blah blah but that doesn’t give them the right to discriminate unconstitutionally. I can think that gays are fabulous but DON’T have to use it as reasoning – the constitution offers the reasoning itself.
I listened to the bulk of the MD House’s session before the vote, and I truly thought I was at bible school. It’s amazing how many delegates gave speeches referencing God and religion as reasoning behind their “no” votes which is not only a direct insult to law and democracy, but to the notion of not forcing morality upon others.
Law for the most part isn’t about Christian morality, it’s about order and fairness; if the other side can’t argue on the merits of law, then they don’t (or shouldn’t) have a leg to stand on.
ITT: people of privilege who will deny it no matter what anyone says
Also featuring: people who think the Idiot is serious business
@Sean -If you force me by law to recognize a same sex marriage you are forcing me to recognize something that violets my religion and you have no right to do that! Just as I have no right to forbid you from marrying who you love in accordance with your beliefs. Taking government out of marriage is the only solution that doesn’t violet anyones beliefs.
At what point are you forced to recognize it? The law in Maryland explicitly “protects” religious institutions from being bombarded with nuptial-happy gays once it passes; they’ve always had the right to turn anyone away that they want to and they will still have that right once it passes. It’s called the Civil Marriage Protection Act because this is all about civil marriage – the governmental, not religious side of things.
Really, the bill has done what you want – it has taken the government out of marriage in a religious sense. Two men or two women, with the passing of the law, will be able to get married in the eyes of the law, but not necessarily in the eyes of religion (that is up to individual places of worship).
@Sean- If I’m your employer I’m forced the recognize your marriage in that I have to call it marriage. To me marriage is something that the state cant bestow and to force me to recognize even a civil marriage is a violation of my religion. It is all in the name.
See, your argument changed. I’m sorry if it pains you to refer to the nuptials of a gay couple as being on the same level as your own, but just because the word marriage has religious connotations to you doesn’t mean that you have a monopoly on the practice or the word.
And again, as an employer, your religion shouldn’t matter because the rule of law, not the rule of religion is what should guide your relationship with me as an employee. You live in a modern society and would go out of business if you based all of your dealings upon what your religion dictated to you.
We live in a world where for whatever reason, government has entangled itself in marriage practices – and while that is still the case (because as I said before, I doubt that fact will ever change) – the practice and benefits that come with it must be afforded to everyone.
I have to assume that there’s a little bit of hatred involved here, if not more than a little. Not necessarily by you, but it speaks volumes that no one cared to get the government out of marriage until lesbians and gay men wanted to partake (and it’s no mistake that this has become a more popular viewpoint to suddenly have as more ground has been gained in the gay marriage fight.)
@ Sean-I have been respectful to you so please do not presume to tell me who I hate, you do not know me. My argument has not changed I think the government shouldn’t bestrew marriage to anyone regardless of gander it is not the governments place to take sides on this issue. If you get married that’s between you, your lover and your church if you have one. I have no right to tell you how to define marriage that is your personal choice all I ask is you give me.
The same choice.
I said not necessarily you, but the viewpoint you hold is one of desperation and for some people, yes, hate; everything was fine until gays started wanting to get married, then the opposition had to keep on coming up with reasons that it was wrong which culminated in some people calling for the complete destruction of the contemporary definition of “marriage” as an institution of both religion and of government/law.
The other arguments were more obviously hateful – “it will lead to polygamy and bestiality”, “it’s unnatural and disgusting”, “it doesn’t lead to children” etc etc…but as I see the arguments tending more towards grasping at straws, there is still an undercurrent of hate; to come up with whatever reason possible to oppose gay marriage is indeed hateful.
So no, I’m not calling you hateful, but I think you need to ask yourself why you feel two people marrying in a civil, lawful sense somehow is “forced” upon you when it really has no impact on you whatsoever.
Sean,
I’m not really interested in joining this conversation, but I do feel I should point out that conflict usually doesn’t arise untill someone has an issue with how something works. In this case, noone cared about marriage being a part of law untill they had a moral conflict with its legal definition. It actually makes a whole lot of sense.
Feel free to point out whatever you want, the point is that the conflict that arises because of someone’s “issue” is based in hate of a group deemed lesser than in this case but they refuse to admit that reality; there are dozens of arguments that crumble in the face of reason but somehow opponents of gay marriage keep coming up with new ones to try.
Um…It’s a faith-based moral principle. Which is why I advocate that to avoid conflict with the religion of the majority of Americans, we remove this conflict from law. Which is hateful because…something.
I’m not saying in a hateful way that it will lead to things like polygamy.
I’m saying it HAS TO.
In a world where we have decided that any adult can marry another adult because they are loving consenting adults, it is absolutely disgusting to not allow polygamy and incest.
If you agree with gay marriage and disagree with them, you are in favor of the institution of marriage as it stands, but some groups are in front of you making you uncomfortable, so you have to agree with them. Your grandchildren will likely make the same call on the other issues. Sure, today its the LGBT community. Tomorrow it’s “Pro Polygamy”, “Legalize Incest Now!” and “NAMBLA”. If you think otherwise, you are just a fool. The slow erosions are the dangerous ones.
I’m vehemently against barring homosexuals from the military, allowing employment discrimination, etc, etc. But please understand that once we argue that marriage need be redefined, we might as well delete it from the public consciousness. It’s not bigotry, it’s common sense. These other groups will be the next in line, without question. Look at incest in switzerland, google pro polygamy groups or NAMBLA. They are already celebrating the successes of LGBT and the chances to ride on their coattails.
Admit that you want all of those legitimized, and then at least we have a debate. Until then it’s just silly.
If gay marriage is LEGAL, might as well legalize NAMBLA. It is their civil right to have the pedophile and pederasty relationships. What is so wrong about that? If gay sex is not wrong, the pedophile and pederasty relationships are certainly not wrong.
“The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors, and for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.”
Just legalize all the taboos now to get it over with. Watch the earth get flooded for 100 days and 100 nights.
I’m not sure if these religious posts are tongue in cheek or just over exuberance by the religious posters, but either way I don’t want their views to undermine mine. My concerns don’t necessitate a deity-induced flood, although I’m not ruling it out, haha.
Look, I don’t equate same sex relationships to pedophilia. What I am trying to point out is a clear example of legal restriction despite being born to have an attraction in a way that isn’t socially acceptable. It already happens. Often. Marriage is hugely regulated. Which as a society makes sense, but that sounds like it will be a tough sell at the moment. The point was brought forth to argue with a poster who was saying gay wasn’t a choice, which I didn’t take a position on.
It also serves to illustrate that there very are well groups who will make these very same arguments to engage in relationships with children. As each domino falls, we will have less and less stable ground upon which to refute them. Not in a day. But maybe polygamy next, maybe incest. And once those are legal, and years pass, and well teens are getting more educated, maybe we oughta drop that voting age, or the drinking age. And then why is it that a teen can vote but can’t marry a 40 year old. Should consent not also lower? It won’t require a deity to annihilate our society. We will do it ourselves, smiling all the way.
@ Sean – How do you know where and when my objections to state sponsored marriage starts? I object to state sponsored marriage no matter who is geting it. I also find it unfair to tell polygamist they cant marry under there own beliefs set. Again I don’t view there marriage as valid but my view is my view all that matters is that they feel there married. My views are not based on hate there based on a simple truth that you can make all the laws you want but you can’t force people to approve of your life style. So just live your life as you wish just don’t force it on me.
If gay marriage is legalized AND if I run a top-notch wedding photography business and I do not believe in gay marriage, will the gay people force my business to take pictures of their gay wedding? Or will my business be sued for discrimination?
If I have a famous bakery business and I do not believe in gay marriage, will my business be sued for refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings?
If I am a wedding singer, and gay marriage is against my religion, will I be sued for refusing to sing or provide music at a gay wedding?
If I own a wedding property and do not believe in gay marriage, will I be sued for not leasing the property to a gay couple who wishes to have a gay marriage at my wedding property?
Some points to ponder.
@Jordan For the last time, no one is forcing gay marriage on you. You don’t have to come to my wedding, or be in my honeymoon suite afterwards. In no way does gay marriage impact you. If you just get this horrible “feeling” that we’re disrespecting your religion even though there is no impact on you, I’m sorry about that…not sure how to help you.
@For The ability to sue is held by every single American for anything they want at all times. The scenarios you brought up were possible before the legislation and they will be afterwards, but being a business owner who chooses to discriminate, you are opening yourself to lawsuits. In most cases though you would win, seeing as how people in this country are so afraid of discriminating religiously but don’t so much care about anti-gay discrimination.
@John D Not sure why I ever answer you; trying to convince the leader of a hate group about what constitutes hate against a minority?! I must be crazy. Oh and you may share a religion with a majority of Americans, but not a stance on gay marriage…so I think the entanglement with the law is fine.
@You are too with the slippery slope argument that this will lead to pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy: if that is indeed the case, it started with straight marriage and it’s going to be a “straight” cause. Gays just wanted the ability to marry one partner, of age, who is human.
But it is, of course, not the case: polygamy = more than two people, which is not what this law is intended for; bestiality & pedophilia, there is no consent which yes, even for the gays, is important. I can find you a few priests who don’t agree though; perhaps they’ll be on the forefront of this so-called “inevitable” progression?
Marriage isn’t a religious thing. Marriage CEREMONIES are. You can get married at the courthouse sans any kind of ceremony and be recognized as married in the eyes of the law (i.e. on your tax forms). Marriage is 100% a legal thing. It’s just the white dress and the organ music and the “you may kiss the bride” that’s a religious thing.
@Sean -If government was out of marriage no one could ever stop you from Bering married plus gay marriage aside why do I need a permit from the government to get married?
Whatever happened to the Pursuit of happiness?
If I can’t dictate someone who they can marry, they shouldn’t be able to dictate to me who I can marry; that is the meaning of freedom of religion.
They’re mad bro.
But dude no, I love how you put things. This is just great.
For,
Yes actually. This happened at I believe a small hotel in New England, where the couple who owned the establishment were against gay marriage. They refused to host a wedding reception for a gay couple. They were then sued.
Sean,
Plenty of people vote against gay marriage. And I can see that you’re fine with the legal entanglement, which I understand. But why so much against just eliminating the conflict? It’s a pretty divisive issue with a pretty simple solution. And as another pointed out, you can have whatever ceremony you like (though I disagree entirely that marriage is 100% legal).
Oh and by the way. Isn’t name calling fun??
YOU’RE A LEADER OF A HATE GROUP TOO!!! So there. I’m not talking to you anymore. Jerk.
Moose said: “The opposition to homosexual relationships is based upon bullshit logic like “it’s a choice” (no it fucking is not – who would CHOOSE to be discriminated against?) or upon the bible.”
@Moose: ALL people are born sinners. Knowing this, people make a conscious choice to sin or not sin based on what they know is right or wrong. Life is about choices. All you do in life is make choices. Everything SINGLE thing you do in life is a choice that you made. When you breathe, you chose to breathe rather than stop your breathing. When you see, you chose to open your eyes rather than close them. So each and everything you do in life is a CHOICE that you consciously make. That is the power of the brain. My right hand is dominant but I made a choice to use my left hand. I also made a choice to use my right hand. I also made a choice to smell or else I could have covered my nose.
So your sexual preference is a CHOICE that you made.
No, it’s not a choice. It’s a biological thing, much like how you didn’t choose to be born with brown hair or choose to have vision problems or choose to be female or white or black or whatever. It’s an innate biological process that drives a person sexually. Not a choice. Don’t be a faggot, jeez.
Do not make an excuse for your choices. If you have vision problems, you can choose to correct them. If you have brown hair, you can choose to dye your hair black.
You made a choice to have sex with the same gender, because the choice made you feel good. That was your choice. You chose the life that you wanted. People choose to gamble because it made them feel good.
There are two primary choices in life: to accept conditions as they exist, or accept the responsibility for changing them.
Your life is determined by your choices, not your circumstances.
So given the circumstances, your sexual preference is a CHOICE that you made.
Very well put, Casey.
I imagine that comment threads like this (and the hundreds of thousands of others out there on the internet) will prove to be lasting testaments to the utter ignorance, bigotry and religious zealotry that has been the foundation to the 3rd great civil rights battle of the past century.
You can’t help but think of all the documentation we’d see of the sexist and racist garbage that would’ve come out of the women’s rights and civil rights movements had the luxury of internet anonymity been around back then. Luckily today, those who have posted their name to online rants filled with such insecurity can’t erase it from the record unless the internet somehow goes belly-up.
It’s scary how close some of the arguments against gay marriage echo those of past anti-rights movements. The phrase that gets thrown around the most is “Traditional Marriage” – a phrase that makes my skin crawl. First, using the word “traditional” to define something that’s (in an official sense) been around a few thousand years in the face of millions of years of humanity seems a little ridiculous, but that’s beside the point.
Do you realize how fast any candidate, Democrat or Republican, would be ousted from the campaign if they said they stood for “Traditional Integration,” i.e. separation of blacks and whites (you know, the way it’s ALWAYS been done for YEARS)? Or if one of them said “I am in favor of Traditional Workplaces” – implying a Don Draper-esque utopia of whiskey rivers and fancy suits, FREE OF PESKY WOMEN!…which is essentially the line Rick Santorum was walking with his sexist comments about women in the military.
What kills me the most is how quickly this devolves into debating the nuts and bolts of financial reasons why we shouldn’t let two HUMAN BEINGS who love each other get the same benefits I’ll get when I ultimately get married (and divorced…and married again…statistics say). It’s insulting.
And to that point, if people who throw up the “Sanctity of Marriage” defense were truly worried about the foundations of an institution they love (and not just worried about two dudes boning in the name of “Holy Matrimony”), why not pour money into couples workshops, therapy and retreats to keep millions of heterosexual couples from FORSAKING THEIR VOWS BEFORE GOD ALMIGHTY and getting a DIVORCE? Those bumper stickers that say “If I can’t get married, you can’t get a divorce” are a tad hyperbolic, but not far off the map.
I know racism still exists. I know sexism still exists. It always will. There will always be people who have a problem with interracial marriages, women leaving the home and two guys being happier in marriage than you and your spouse. I just take solace in the fact that 50 years from now, the only people who will get away with saying such things in public will be people my age (in their mid-70′s by that point), and it will just get written off as “folksy.”
Joe Whiting
I agree with the original article.
However, I think that maybe it would be a good idea if government got out of marriage all together. Just issued civil unions for everyone and left marriage to the churches. Because marriage started out as a religious institution, and for the most part it still is.
So i’m confused…since my religion says that everyone should wear capes and pray to santa claus after watching House.
Because I have these religious values, this means I can make everyone think like me right? Is that how freedom of religion works? I really can’t tell anymore.
Is America a Theocracy?
Idiot- while I agree with most of what you’re saying, let me offer you some advice. As a Towson graduate and currently employed writer (I’m assuming you are a Journalism major and will be looking for a job soon), you should probably have a better response to your criticism than “You Mad Bro?”
That pretty much ruined any sort of credibility you had after writing a pretty strong argument. Take time to think of your rebuttals, rather than offering up a response that makes you look clueless.
Joe, any two human beings who are in love. Why only two? And even so, this includes a mom and a son, or a brother and a brother, right? Because you have zero argument if you aren’t accepting of incest, at bare minimum.
I find it hilarious that if we disagree with people like you, we are ignorants and bigots. But when I point out a different group that would only want to marry by the exact same criteria, you have nothing to say, or argue it’s somehow different.
Either I’m right, and marriage is worth regulation, or you are, but even if you are you are just ignorant and a bigot in the next stage of all this. Seriously, no one else sees the humor here? I’m rolling.
^agreed with Bill. It’s hilarious that people argue with you and take offense but you should offer more of a response.
As for the theocracy comment, it’s nonsense. A theocracy requires a leader who is regarded as divine, or adherence to the rules of one, singular sect of religion.
Anyone who takes a quick glance at our checks and balances, or the vast diversity of faith in the literal millions who have the power to choose representatives, even the hint or crack at theocracy just seems ludicrous.
What the constitution (particularly the MD constitution) protects however, is me having to put aside the basis of my morality, which just so happens to be religion, when I do go into the voting booth. You certainly wouldn’t do the same for your morality, which is drawn from many things. In fact, we draw from many of the same things (parents, education, life experiences, culture) of which theism or atheism and all the complexities therin. Nor should you have to. Me being influenced by religion does not breach your first amendment rights. You attempting or arguing someone ought to attempt preventing my influence, well that does breach it. Again, if you think the Federal Constitution is unclear on this matter, we’re in luck, because the Maryland Constitution is expressly clear that preventing the involvement of religion in civil matters, including government is forbidden.
Nobody’s asking you to get gay-married. How does what they do dictate anything in your life?
You’d think someone of such high moral character would support equality among all of “God’s children.”
Really? I posted like 15 paragraphs. Your best argument is coming back with an attack on a position I didn’t hold in anything I posted.
I fully realize nobody will force me to get gay-married. Thank you for this assurance. Despite the intense relief I am currently feeling, now knowing I will not be forced to be gay married, I am still against it for about a hundred reasons.
I assume by equality, you are then in favor of polygamy and incest, at the very least. right?
Whoops, accidentally forgot to change my snarky name from another thread back to my snarky name for this one…hah.
A hundred reasons for homosexuals to not get married? Sounds like a challenge. Let’s hear them. And “My personal religion” would only count as one answer, and is invalid.
You do realize Mike’s entire post with the theocracy comment was a total joke right?
Of course I realized it was a joke. I said a crack about theocracy was still stupid. I don’t think you understood me as well as I did him.
We’ll get to the other 90 when the 10 or so I posted are actually answered instead of assuming I am a religious zealot despite none of my arguments were “God said not to”
So, I just want to address all the “slippery slope” arguments that keep popping up. The “if gay marriage then polygamy, incest, pedophilia, etc.”
Pedophilia is not equatable to gay relationships because children are not consenting adults. It doesn’t need any more explanation than this.
Incest, on the other hand, is illegal due to genetic dangers to the offspring of two closely related individuals. It’s also interesting to note, and many other mammals, are hardwired by evolution to find incest revolting, due to the inherent risk to possible offspring.
Everyone who compares homosexuality to pedophilia and incest, and yet gets offended when called a bigot is an idiot. And indeed, you are bigots. You’re comparing two consenting adults acting out a perfectly, biologically normal urge (one also practiced by some 1500 other species), to one act that equates to sexual assault, and to another that humans are completely hardwired to abhor for good reason.
Then we get to polygamy. And yes, one could argue that they are similar situations, entirely between consenting adults. There is, however, a huge difference: polygamy is harmful to society. In polygamist areas, there are many problems resulting directly from plural marriage. And by plural marriage, I’m referring to polygyny, because polyandry has never happened as a common practice. In polygynous societies, older men hold a disproportionate amount of wealth and power, the mortality rate of children is significantly higher, and younger men are more likely to engage in self destructive behavior, like drug use and crime.
Now that I have told you why a man and his daughter can’t get married, and why a man can’t marry 13 women, I want you to actually tell me why two men or two women can’t get married. Now here’s the real challenge: do it without talking about religion.
Marriage and the sacrament of holy matrimony are not the same thing. Marriage is a social practice that has had secular ties to government and property for centuries, and it has also had a constantly changing definition. As long as the state and federal government give thousands of rights to marriage couples, it is a governmental issue, and I have every right to receive those rights with a partner I love as everyone else does.
1500 against the millions of species on earth? There are about 40,000 species of fish, is it perfectly natural for us to breathe underwater? Sure would make this conversation more difficult.
Incest between two consenting adults shouldn’t be illegal based on your revulsion. There are millions who would argue those same arguments against homosexuality. Not ok because they don’t produce perfect offspring? So now you can’t have a relationship unless you can produce genetically competitive children. That’s a big uh oh for gays, buddy. An inbred mutant is still a more impressive offspring than what two men or two women will produce.
Besides, polygamy is perfectly natural too. There are very, very few instances of monogamy in nature.
As for your challenge, here’s one for you…actually read what I’m saying. I haven’t used religion ONCE. I already have succeeded at your challenge. You seem, however, so set on fooling yourself into believing it’s the only argument we have against you. Obviously it is not. The only discussion I had on religion was pointing out how bringing it up isn’t unconstitutional in this state. Despite it being allowed, I haven’t bothered, other people here have posted on religious beliefs. My disapproval for the new law is entirely secular.
But please, one more time ignore my actual points and insist I am a zealot. You continue to prove that they stable ground beneath your position is an absolute myth.
You are too: You don’t seem to understand how logic works.
Due to immutable, biological factors, some humans exhibit same sex attraction. There are many other species that also exhibit homosexual behavior. Therefore, it follows, that homosexuality is natural.
Fish breathe with gills. It does not follow that humans with gills is natural.
There is a difference between not being able to reproduce, and having biologically deformed children. Those are two different situations. Sterile men and women are able to get married, and elderly persons who are no longer able to have children are also able to get married. Because gay people cannot reproduce does not mean that they should not be able to get married.
And I never said that something being natural means that it should be legal. It is merely a counterpoint to people who say that homosexuality is an abomination because it is “unnatural.”
You have made exactly three arguments in the course of your comments:
1. Slippery Slope- This is your crutch, you keep bringing up that by allowing gay marriage, every thing else will be allowed. See my previous post for my rebuttal.
2. You said in your first post that we will lose tax revenue because same sex couples will pay less in taxes-
Yes, gay couples will be paying the same amount in taxes as a straight couple once the federal government recognizes gay marriage. This is another reason that gay marriage should be legal- american citizens deserve equal treatment under the law.
3. “You won’t find the words separation of church and state anywhere in there.”
No, those exact words are not in the constitution. But the Supreme Court has reiterated time and time again that “government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion.”
That is how you actually form an argument. I addressed all of your points and gave a rebuttal. Your responses to my argument have been a combination of illogical nonsense and claims that I didn’t address your arguments.
On a side note, my original post wasn’t directed at you specifically, so the fact that you never mentioned religion doesn’t make it stupid that I addressed the topic that other people commenting here have been talking about.
Illogical nonsense? In what way has it been illogical?
The original poster commented that gay marriage would in some way result in increased tax revenue. This was illogical. I pointed out the fallacy, which was the only time I brought up point number 2. It is by no means a major part of my position, I was merely pointing out what was in essence a bullshit argument.
The original poster commented that a separation of church and state protected same sex marriage from commentary from the religious. This is less an issue of being illogical, and more an issue of being illiterate. I pointed out what the constitution actually says, which still leaves room for debate, and the Maryland constitution, which does not…it could not be more clear.
Slippery slope is neither illogical nor a crutch. It is a perfectly logical progression based on the arguments that social groups are already making on the matter. It’s also how the measure was defeated last year, because as right now, there is no logical way to argue for one “any consenting adults” and not for others.
Your counterpoint is interesting but ineffective against my argument, which does not depend on homosexuality being an abomination. That’s a little too emotional for my taste.
As for claiming you aren’t addressing my arguments, I’d say that’s fair when I’ve had post after post arguing just what you challenged me to do…against this law, without needing religion.
If Americans deserve equal treatment, it should only matter that they are legal American adults. Whether they are straight, gay, already related, 2 partners, or 7. If you don’t agree with half of those, how are you better than I am, or more fair? You aren’t. I just happen to disagree with one more, and one redefinition which is sure to bring others.
As for your biological argument, I think you need to take an actual stance. You defend homosexual relationships on the basis they have a biological basis, and this is reflected in nature. I could easily make a case for polygamy, incest, and any number of other things you clearly think ought not be legal. Either this biological argument is defensible or not. Arguing it counts for what you want, and not for what someone else does in a very similar position is very weak.
@You are too
You’re floundering.
In what way am I floundering?
It seems to me my opponents can do nothing other than fling insults and misquote the first amendment…
I can’t believe you’re still talking about this…
Someone please point me to our “must important political document”
Every year, the relevance of the opposition’s arguments diminishes. Gay marriage will continue to gain acceptance and no matter how much you hate it, no matter how much it goes against your warped thinking, you will have lost. Relevance of your contrived arguments: denied. Fact. The end.
@ The truth. No. You are wrong.
I will always vote according to my conscience, upbringing and beliefs. That is what this country gives me and all other citizens.
Just because someone does not agree with you does not make them warped.
Like it or not the majority of US citizens identify themselves as Christian. I would wager that a majority of that population is for traditional marriage in accordance with natural law.
@The Truth – Your arguments are being reviewed. We will inform you of our decision when we deem appropriate.
Majority Rules. Majority Wins.
In the end of days, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Fact.
And even those of us who aren’t confessing yet still don’t have to be pro same sex marriage, as I have demonstrated with my very secular view on the subject.
You think the tide is turning in your favor. I think you’re just pissing off a majority that will eventually bring the legal hammer down in a way not easy to undo state by state through activist judges.
Gay marriage will be abolished again sometime in the future when people get tired of it.
You know how Iran was westernized before 1979. Then the Islamic Revolution took over in 1979 and it set back Iran for like 1000 years.
Well, guess what. About 20 to 100 years from now, the people will be tired of the abominations (gay marriage, etc.) that have been legalized. There will be a REVOLUTION to go back to the way it was. It may even be an Islamic Revolution in the USA. Exactly as to what happened to Iran. Iran was poised to be the richest westernized country under the Shah. Then a very influential Ayatollah captured the rebel side of the Iranians. And here they are today, under the Islam.
Search Youtube of how Iran used to be before 1979. Women with no burkas and in mini-skirts. Cool-looking men. Now everyone in Iran look like ter2or*sts.
Best way is for government to not be involved with love and marriage.
And this is EXACTLY why we keep talking about Islam…
Hey baby, two chicks together and getting it on is shagalicious if they’re hotties. Let me join in, baby!
@You Too said- Thank you for your well written posts.
One thing that the gay community fails to realize is that NAMBLA was part of the gay movement. Starting as far back as 1977 and after NAMBLA was blamed for the disappearance and death of a child the gay community later cut them off. It only too until the year 2000 to quiet them. Then again The Pedophile book came out in later years and we see how many companies sold it.
Another Point: According to the CDC the highest age group for AIDS/HIV is AA Males having sex with males between the ages of 13-29 (Notice the age range of 13-17 is not age of consent but it’s not stopping adult men from having sex with them and infecting them.
The 2nd highest is White males that have sex with males between the ages of 30-39.
And women that are infected with HIV/AIDS are getting their infections from heterosexual sex.
What does this say?
As we already know many older men are attracted to younger men. So younger men that start having sex at a young age ie 13 are actually having it with infected older men. Many of the men in general that are having homosexual sex are not “out of the closet” and are continuing long term relationships and even marriage with women. So this infection spreads to women unaware of the behaviors that are going on behind their backs. Maybe these men are bisexual but this is more often hidden from their female partners.
Go to any sugar daddy site and find that most of the young Gay Sugar Baby Males are actually sleeping with (closeted) men that are married to women.
If we’re to accept gay marriage you also have to accept polygamy, incest and pedophilia.
It’s funny how someone can say one is gross but wants others to accept their way of life.
As time goes on, you will see more of a push for these other sexual behaviors to be ” recognized” as normal.
Also using bigotry and hate is not really true. Someone’s race is something that can never be hidden. An AA man cannot just ” come out of the closet” and say” Hey everyone I’m Black!” This wouldn’t be news flash when it’s plainly obvious.
The argument ” born this way” could be true. Again no one cares who you take to bed, I’m just tired of having to be told this every day. I don’t talk about my sexual desires with strangers , why should you?
My posts have nothing to do with religion , they are clear facts. Kids being bullied in schools have happened for A. Being smarter than the rest of the class ( geek, nerd) Are they creating a movement? Race, Religion, even Visual Disabilities. Seriously who is even going to know that you’re gay unless you’re going out of your way to throw it into someone’s face? There are more derogatory words for races than someone could every create for a homosexual person.
In history the gay community has bullied people into pushing their sexual beliefs on others.
The story about the Gay Gucci Managers that were sexually harassing a straight male at his job. Putting their hands on him, massaging his back after he told them to stop and telling him that ” he’s gay”. He’s now suing them and I hope to hell he wins.
I have been attacked physically by gay women trying to push their desires on me, telling me I should ” experiment” when I’m straight. This has happened more than once but because everyone is walking on pins and needles with the gay movement people are just trying to side step these situations and not make waves. I’m tired of it! I even had a lesbian woman try to get in the dressing room with me and I had to tell her to leave. Her comment” ooh but we’re both women”. Do I look stupid? My privacy is my privacy and you have no right to be in here. I had to complain to the manager and it got marked as ” a misunderstanding”.
As with all things in society even if you have desires to change things, there were always be people that will abuse this and it’s already begun.
This isn’t even about rights anymore.
Leave your response!
Year in Review
The Towerlight in Print
Check our print archives.
Categories
Weather
Archive
Resources
Used Cars
First Class Chauffeured Washington DC Limousine Service
Recent Comments
recent articles
Links
Sections