Do you support same-sex marriage?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » April 7, 2009, 7:55 am

I choose Coke over Pepsi, women over men, and I don't think there is too much difference between the two choices. It is definitely something that is decided by the summation of our unique experiences in life, the details of which we can't even comprehend because it's already being affected before we're conscious enough to think clearly.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 7, 2009, 8:16 am

Fash wrote:I choose Coke over Pepsi, women over men, and I don't think there is too much difference between the two choices. It is definitely something that is decided by the summation of our unique experiences in life, the details of which we can't even comprehend because it's already being affected before we're conscious enough to think clearly.

Have you ever had Pepsi before?

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this, so how about cock? Have you ever had cock before?

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » April 7, 2009, 2:21 pm

For all you straight people out there, stop for a second and really think about it, Why do i like women (if your a man) or why do i like men (if your a woman). Then once you answer that question, ask yourself why don't you like your own sex. Don't just answer yourself with "ohh thats icky and gross" or other crap like that.

I myself have thought about both of those questions many times. And the answer is, I'm not attracted to women like a heterosexual male would be. I just don't have those feelings. And trust me, getting a woman for me would not be an issue, its just i don't want one. And in regards to the reason for why i like men, i like them because i am attracted to them in the sense that a heterosexual male would be attracted to a woman. i want a dude, not a chick.

Also, do people honestly think that one would choose a life of being discriminated against? That holds as much water as saying that someone chose to be born black in the south during slavery, its preposterous. Why would someone make a conscious choice to be discriminated against, sometimes in extremely horrible ways (IE killed). Do people think being discriminated against is enjoyable? If so, have you ever been discriminated against and did you find it an enjoyable and thrilling experience?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » April 7, 2009, 2:23 pm

Drasta wrote:Why do i like women (if your a man) or why do i like men (if your a woman)

Boobies.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 7, 2009, 2:25 pm

moobies?

cadalano · Post by **cadalano** » April 7, 2009, 2:30 pm

we also would have accepted "mannories"

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 7, 2009, 2:51 pm

It is a brain defect.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008 ... -link.html

Some day maybe there will be a cure for wanting man beef up the pooper.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » April 7, 2009, 3:39 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Some day maybe there will be a cure for wanting man beef up the pooper.

But not for women, please.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 7, 2009, 3:56 pm

Also, do people honestly think that one would choose a life of being discriminated against?

Absolutely, not to derail into the "why is someone gay, etc.." topic, but that's certainly one of the reasons.

I don't think there's anyone around qualified to make a call on that topic that would be doing it without a prior conclusion or ulterior motive either so... For me I'll leave it in the "I don't know why" category.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » April 7, 2009, 4:00 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:It is a brain defect.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008 ... -link.html

Some day maybe there will be a cure for wanting man beef up the pooper.

Left handedness, gender and a myriad of other "conditions" including political alignment and religiosity are all known or believed to be indicated by differences in brain symmetry. A physiological indicator does not denote a defect, just a difference. Would anyone be surprised if Kilmoll's retardation was indicated by a deviation from normal in his brain symmetry?

geez - excuse the edits, I was on the phone while responding and borked my post!

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 7, 2009, 4:01 pm

Aabidano wrote:Absolutely, not to derail into the "why is someone gay, etc.." topic, but that's certainly one of the reasons.

I don't think there's anyone around qualified to make a call on that topic that would be doing it without a prior conclusion or ulterior motive either so... For me I'll leave it in the "I don't know why" category.

You honestly don't think a homo is qualified in the subject of homosexuality?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » April 7, 2009, 4:04 pm

Spang wrote:You honestly don't think a homo is qualified in the subject of homosexuality?

No more than a mental patient is qualified in the subject of mental disorders...

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 7, 2009, 4:07 pm

Fash wrote:No more than a mental patient is qualified in the subject of mental disorders...

Being gay is not a mental disorder or a brain defect.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » April 7, 2009, 4:13 pm

Spang wrote:
Fash wrote:No more than a mental patient is qualified in the subject of mental disorders...
Being gay is not a mental disorder or a brain defect.

Some might disagree. Regardless, the answer is still no. A single homo is not qualified to speak in generalities about the source of homo tendencies, and barely qualified to speak about their own tendencies. Consciousness is not absolute.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 7, 2009, 4:14 pm

Fash wrote:Some might disagree. Regardless, the answer is still no. A single homo is not qualified to speak in generalities about the source of homo tendencies, and barely qualified to speak about their own tendencies. Consciousness is not absolute.

How many dicks did you suck before you chose to be straight?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » April 7, 2009, 4:16 pm

Spang wrote:
Fash wrote:Some might disagree. Regardless, the answer is still no. A single homo is not qualified to speak in generalities about the source of homo tendencies, and barely qualified to speak about their own tendencies. Consciousness is not absolute.
How many dicks did you suck before you chose to be straight?

None, thanks.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 7, 2009, 4:18 pm

Fash wrote:None, thanks.

Why not?

(I'm trying to prove a point.)

Fash · Post by **Fash** » April 7, 2009, 4:33 pm

Spang wrote:
Fash wrote:None, thanks.
Why not?

My answer for myself is a meaningless assumption because even I am not aware of the true reason why. Plus I would rather kill myself.

I do support gay marriage though, and I have a gay friend who flirts with me. He's my girlfriends childhood friend and roommate. Really nice guy. If I had to make assumptions about his orientation I would say that his mother being abused when he was a child had some sort of impact.

I know you're trying to prove a point. I'm also trying to prove a point, except explaining it is pretty difficult. The brain, our preferences, and how we understand our preferences are too complex for us to fully understand. We don't have access to all the information.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » April 7, 2009, 5:23 pm

fash, do you know any mentally ill people that are coherent? many of them know A LOT about their own disorder. And in reference to being gay as a brain defect, lets go down that road shall we, How about people with red hair? that is also a genetic defect, so we should "cure" red heads as well? Perceiving something as being a defect is usually because its something different than what is normal. And once again, what the hell is normal? Are Obese people normal? Since many Americans are beginning to become overweight/obese should skinny people be considered defective by American standards?

Also, I will agree, I am not an all knowing homosexual, but I do know a lot about the subject matter because well, gay people talk to each other. Like a lot of gay people figure it out in middle school because billy is cuter than sally. We also talk about why we feel that we are gay. So I use what I have learned from my other gay friends to base my opinions, and most of them are the same.

And fash, why would you rather die than suck a dick? I can tell you why i dont wanna eat pussy. That thing is NASTY looking (sorry ladies). I do not find it aesthetically pleasing what so ever nor arousing.

Lol and on the subject of boobs, some dudes have bigger boobies than women.... =-P

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 7, 2009, 7:08 pm

So I use what I have learned from my other gay friends to base my opinions, and most of them are the same.

Everyone used to agree that the world was flat too. They were almost right.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » April 7, 2009, 7:43 pm

Aabidano wrote:
So I use what I have learned from my other gay friends to base my opinions, and most of them are the same.
Everyone used to agree that the world was flat too. They were almost right.

Yea and people believe in god too. And they think they are right too.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 7, 2009, 7:55 pm

Drasta wrote: Yea and people believe in god too. And they think they are right too.

I'm pretty sure that deep down, people that believe in God know they are batshit insane.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » April 7, 2009, 11:14 pm

lol i hope so

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » April 8, 2009, 3:42 pm

Aabidano wrote:
So I use what I have learned from my other gay friends to base my opinions, and most of them are the same.
Everyone used to agree that the world was flat too. They were almost right.

I'm glad you're comparing the general world population of today (everybody) vs the general world population of the 4th century BC (the last time a large population of people believed the Earth was flat.). However, I don't believe this comparison makes sense at all. You're comparing a world that is largely uneducated, especially regarding science, to a group of people attracted to their own sex. But hey, pretty soon after the 4th Century BC, every educated person started to believe the earth was a sphere, so maybe your comparison will be right more valid, and the world will stop being full of bigots.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 8, 2009, 7:51 pm

That we've a number of people that can't deal with the concept of analogy is pretty obvious.

The point is, using no analogies at all is that being gay, or straight for that matter doesn't in the least tiny little bit qualify you to determine why you are the way you are. Does it help you describe it? To some extent, but that's not the same thing.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 8, 2009, 8:09 pm

Yes, it does. It certainly doesn't make the ultimate authority on homosexuality. It doesn't even make you much of an authority on homosexuality.

But yes, descriptions, by homosexuals, of homosexuality, are quite important to understanding homosexuality. Do you disagree with this?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » April 8, 2009, 8:20 pm

I do disagree. Helpful sure, and might give you some idea, but not that important. What's there to understand? They like cocks, but they don't know why.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 8, 2009, 8:46 pm

Sometimes they like pussy too, gay people come in both genders.

The reason why it's important to listen to gay peoples experiences when trying to understand homosexuality is because they have experienced homosexuality. We haven't. We have no idea what it's like to desire cock (or pussy, for the ladies). They do. Because we don't know what it's like, all we can do is guess about what's going on inside the heads of people who do. Because they do know, they can tell us.

Take, for instance, these two possibilities.

1. Gay men are simply disgusted by women. They find vaginas unbelievably gross, breasts comical, and the overall female form to be bizarre and weird. They could never conceptualize touching a woman. However, they are men, and they still get horny. So they've turned to fucking one another because women are too awful to contemplate. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with being attracted to men.

2. Gay men think that guys are hot. They like cock, they like the male form, and they find male sexuality erotic and arousing. They don't have these feelings toward women. Therefore, they fuck men.

If we did not listen to gay people, how could we know which of these is true? If our only information is "there are people who have sex with members of the same gender, and we call them gay," then there would really be no way to tell, especially if we're not intimately involved in gay communities and don't have plentiful opportunities for observation.

Note that I'm simply saying that gay people can tell us what it's like for them to be homosexual. I'm not claiming that they can tell us why they're homosexual. But understanding what homosexuality is like, and how it operates on an individual level, is, I believe, important to explaining why it exists and what precisely it is.

I'm not saying that a gay person is capable of accurately psychoanalyzing themselves, or capable of transforming personal sexual anecdotes into a persuasive scientific account of homosexuality. Clearly that's not even close to possible. But I am saying that listening to what gay people say about their own sexuality is useful in understanding their sexuality. The idea that someone would reject this premise is mind-boggling to me.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 8, 2009, 8:54 pm

For instance:

Sometimes, conservatives on this board are called racists or homophobes or bigots of other sorts. I'd assume that this has happened to you before; it's certainly happened to Funk and Kilmoll and others. The response of the conservative is usually "no, you're wrong, I don't have any animosity toward black people, I'm totally cool with black people" or whatever. The fact that someone out there believes that you are a racist-- when your experience fully indicates to you that you don't have a racist bone in your body-- is immensely frustrating and disempowering. At least, it certainly seems to be, given how much the conservatives on this board complain when it happens.

When that person calls you a racist, they are not listening to you, they are not taking you seriously, they are simply viewing you from an exterior perspective and making judgments based only on what they see manifesting in the real world.

Is it so hard to believe that a gay person-- who, let's face it, is likely to have their opinions marginalized, dismissed, and ignored FAR more often than a conservative in this world-- would feel something similar?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » April 8, 2009, 10:14 pm

It seems like you're agreeing with me that they (or anyone) is incapable of explaining why they are that way, but you're just arguing that I'm dismissing their opinions on it entirely and felt like writing a novella to say that. Of course it makes sense they might get upset, as I have and still do, when their opinions are marginalized... but this is VV, right?

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » April 8, 2009, 11:50 pm

lol fash, explain to me why you are a heterosexual then.

Also sueven, something that i've come to learn is that most people don't want to understand homosexuality. they would rather ignore it or sweep it under the rug because it makes them feel uncomfortable so they avoid the subject or just blow it off in order to avoid it.

also, no im not able to tell you in a mapped out biochemical reaction why i am a homosexual. its just the way i am. I like the penis, the male form is attractive. (side note: not all men are attractive either, for you straight men that are like omg gay men think im hot because im a dude!! AHH!! sorry .. doesnt' work like that, get over yourself) But, totally ignoring listening to why someone tells you they feel that they are gay and are relating it to how you are a heterosexual is stupid and you just not wanting to know or understand. That in turn results in pre-conceptions about homosexuals, and people will never get to the bottom of it because the straight people know more about being gay than a gay person.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 9, 2009, 5:13 am

I'm a heterosexual because I was born this way. I did not choose to be straight. I remember getting raging boners while looking at Playboys at a young age. I remember looking through the TV book at the movies coming on late at night, searching for the ones with nudity. As soon as those titties popped up on the television my dick got hard. In fact, sometimes my dick would be hard in anticipation. I didn't know what to do with an erection at that time, but I instinctively knew that looking at naked women was the right thing to do, being that I wasn't gay. I'd like to think having a hard cock while looking at naked women would be undeniable proof. I never considered looking at naked men. However, I did watch a lot of wrestling growing up. There were a lot of almost naked men on those shows and not a single one of them got my soldier to stand at attention. I was never aroused by men, always women. But that's me as a heterosexual. Your mileage may vary.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » April 9, 2009, 11:57 am

well according to a few, thats not telling us why =-P

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 9, 2009, 11:39 pm

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

The Source

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » April 10, 2009, 2:36 am

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » April 10, 2009, 5:25 am

that's... beautiful
i am memorizing that entire quote, for its many awesome uses

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 20, 2009, 2:37 am

None of these reasons were invented by me D: I just found them on the internet~

P.S. If you get confused, I'll state it plainly now that I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE, M'kay? I'M VOTING NO ON PROP 8!

P.P.S. For anyone that wants to argue with me about "But the bible says...!" I link you now to my essay: The Morality of Homosexuality

----------------

Irony is a form of expression in which an implicit meaning is concealed or contradicted by the explicit meaning of the expression. Irony involves the perception that things are not what they are said to be or what they seem.

Socratic irony is feigning ignorance in order to expose the weakness of another's position.

That said, let's move on to:

50 Best reasons Gay Marriage is wrong!

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, birth control and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all: women are property, matches are arranged in childhood, blacks can't marry whites, Catholics can't marry Jews, divorce is illegal, and adultery is punishable by death

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. If we look to the word of God, His punishment for sexual immorality is equal to that of murder. Therefore, teaching kids to tolerate homosexuality is equal to teaching them to tolerate murder.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy (insurance, government, tourism, banking, retail, education, and social services), suburban malls, or longer life spans.

12. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

13. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “seperate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

14. There is no separation between religious marriage and legal marriage, because there is no separation of church and state.

15. Devout, faithful Anglicans should never accept same-sex marriage, because it is an affront to the traditional family values upheld by Henry VIII and his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and his wife, Anne Boleyn, and his wife, Jane Seymour, and his wife, Anne of Cleves, and his wife, Catherine Howard, and his wife, Catherine Parr. They all knew the meaning of marriage and none of them lost their heads over the matter.

16. Married gay people will encourage others to be gay, in a way that unmarried gay people do not.

17. Legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing dog marriage. This can be inferred from the history of other political initiatives for gender equality. For example, when American women got the right to vote in 1920, it led to terriers voting in 1925, and when Title IX was passed in 1972 to prevent sex discrimination in any federally-funded school, resulting in the creation of athletic opportunities for girls, it led to Bichon Frises on the basketball court during the Reagan administration.

18. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to legislative change in general, which could possibly include the legalization of polygamy, incest, medical marijuana, and unmuzzled pit bulls. Because we don’t know what might come down the next slippery slope, we should never change any law.

19. Legal marriage will inspire gays to mimic straight traditions, such as spiritual commitment ceremonies and celebratory parties, which is currently impermissible for them to do and which they have never done before.

20. Marriage is designed to protect the well-being of children. Gay people do not need marriage because they never have children from prior relationships, artificial insemination, surrogacy, or adoption.

21. Civil unions are a good option because "separate but equal" institutions are always constitutional. In fact, compared with marriage, civil unions are so attractive that straight people are calling dibs on them.

22. A man should not be able to marry whomever a woman can marry, and a woman should not be able to marry whomever a man can marry, because in this country we do not believe in gender equality.

23. If gays marry, some of straight people's tax dollars would end up supporting families whose structure they may find morally objectionable. Clearly, it is more just to continue taking gay people's tax dollars to support straight families, who are going to heaven regardless of what anyone else thinks of them.

24. Gays should hold off on the marriage question until society is more accepting of them, because they are not part of society.

25. The people's voice must be heard on this issue. Therefore, we must have a vote on a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, because we can't think of any other way to discuss the issue.

26. Each state should decide for itself whether gay marriage will be recognized, because there is no "full faith and credit" clause that requires states to recognize each other's institutions.

27. Gay marriage attempts to replace natural heterosexual instinct with a cultural institution. Morality demands that we subordinate institutionalized commitment to raw, unfettered, biological impulse.

28. Gay marriages could very well suffer maladies like domestic violence and substance abuse. That's why we invented the Quality Control department to pre-approve the righteousness of all marriage applicants.

29. Those who support gay marriage aim to overthrow the dominant culture, as evidenced by their enthusiasm to participate in it.

30. If the state performs gay marriages, Christians might become more liberal and divide into more mutually opposed parties. Since the government is an arm of the church and is responsible for keeping the peace in Christian leadership councils, it should not get involved with gay marriage.

31. After gay marriage was legalized in Scandinavian countries in 2004, more heterosexual couples realized they wanted to live together and bear children without marrying first. Banning gay marriage is a good way to prevent this practice, as is banning independent thought and mandating straight marriage by age 21.

32. Heterosexual marriage was invented in the Biblical book of Genesis. Written somewhere between 1500 and 500 BCE, Genesis came as a great relief to people in many cultures, such as China, who, prior to 1500 BCE, sat around waiting for the Mesopotamians to invent the family unit.

33. Gay marriage would allow more partners and children to sign onto the family breadwinner's healthcare plan. Given that 44 million Americans do not have health insurance, it is safe to say that health insurance is not an American value.

34. The possibility of getting a gay marriage might encourage some married heterosexuals to divorce and seek a gay union instead. These marriages were obviously happy and successful, and the justices who provide gay second marriages should be charged with alienation of affection.

35. Gay marriage may hurl the populace into existential crisis and cause spontaneous divorces. Divorce triggers our moral hemorrhaging, but we will keep it legal. It is easier to seek the criminalization of gay marriage than the criminalization of divorce, particularly because most of us have had a few divorces.

36. Gay marriage is tainted because some of the applicants might be divorcees marrying for the second time. We oppose remarriage, and would like to ensure that no one marries more than once; therefore we will oppose the entire institution of marriage, to ensure that no one ever marries at all. That casts the net wide enough to catch all the would-be second-timers.

37. The people have the right to demand to vote on a Massachusetts constitutional amendment against gay marriage. There is no reason for proposed amendments to go through the state Legislature first, as is constitutionally required, because the Legislature doesn't spend all that many paid hours sitting around discussing the legal ramifications on behalf of ordinary citizens who are too busy with their own jobs to figure out everything at stake.

38. The arguments for gay marriage are flawed because Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has made inconsistent statements about gay marriage, and he is known for his consistency on other issues.

39. Married gay couples will find it easier to adopt children, who might then be bullied and teased by other children for who their parents are. This reflects poorly on the judgment of gays who adopt children with the risk that their child could possibly be teased. It does not, of course, imply anything about the responsibilities of heterosexual parents, whose children only pick up rocks for geological interest and couldn't have been listening when their parents made those comments about their neighbors.

40. Children of married gay couples might suffer bullying and teasing more often than children of unmarried gay couples, because playground bullies are sensitive to the nuances of contract law.

41. It is reasonable and fair to institute "civil unions" that provide all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but we cannot apply the holy, mystical word "marriage" to this contract. Deriving from the Latin maritare, "marriage" evokes the dignity of the typical Roman man who engaged in licentious sex with both sexes until he reached middle age, at which time he maritared a teenage girl to bear his children.

42. According to the three proposed "compromise" Massachusetts constitutional amendments defeated by the Legislature on Feb. 11 and 12, 2004, the best way to "protect the unique relationship of [heterosexual] marriage" is to institute civil unions that are in every way identical to it.

43. God created the institution of marriage, just after he created 2.9% APR automobile financing, student loans, HMOs, and divorce.

44. We must defer to the President's opinion on gay marriage, since the Republican party was given its authority by God. As it is written: "Republican and Democrat created He them." Paul elaborated: "Democrats, submit to the Republican."

45. In San Francisco, where renegade officials have married same-sex couples for the past several weeks, experts suggest that the city may suffer an earthquake in about ten years. Geological experts, that is. But good Christians don't recognize the opinion of Earth scientists, who falsely claim the Earth is 4.5 billion years old; they get their seismic information from their preachers, who say the earthquake's coming next week.

46. Allowing same-sex marriage could increase gay public displays of affection, because marriage has historically been proven to stimulate couples' interest in sex.

47. Making civil marriage available to same-sex couples could spur the wedding industry, and businesses would sure hate to pay taxes on all that profit.

48. Straight men are opposed to gay marriage because they would prefer that gay men try to be straight and compete with them for access to women, trimming down the pool of eligible dates to make courtship more challenging and exciting.

49. The country can't afford to provide benefits for any more married couples. That's why President Bush would never consider spending $150 million on programs that encourage more straight people to get married.

50. Gay marriage is wrong because children might be led to think that it is right and that would clearly be wrong.

The Source

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » April 20, 2009, 1:28 pm

Why can't I own Canadians?

I too would like to have this clarified.

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » April 20, 2009, 4:28 pm

Yeah, most of that list of questions is taken from an episode of The West Wing (2nd season, "The Midterms"), but it remains a quite poignant attack on the pick-and-mix attitude some fundies have with the bible.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » May 28, 2009, 2:21 am

The video is fucking perfect!