patrick.net

Why Germany hasn't passed full Gay Marriage laws...

Dan the Pope is laughing "With you".

CaptainShuddup says

Dan the Pope is laughing "With you".

Actually, this pope isn't a bigoted asshole like you and like all previous popes. He still wears a silly hat and performs nonsensical rituals, but at least he's not a cave man like the 33% of Americans who call themselves conservatives.

I don't have a Bigtoe.

Then it's an awfully small penis.

Dan8267 says

Actually, this pope isn't a bigoted asshole like you and like all previous popes. He still wears a silly hat and performs nonsensical rituals, but at least he's not a cave man like the 33% of Americans who call themselves conservatives.

Which is why he's hated by Conservative Catholics. He's not monomaniacal about abortion 100% of the time. He actually talks about inequity, global warming, and poverty. Which makes him an anti-Pope to many:
http://theweek.com/articles/532784/republican-partys-warwith-pope-francishas-finally-started

We heard the first rumblings last fall, when the preliminary draft of a statement produced by the extraordinary Synod on the Family inspired New York Times columnist Ross Douthat to warn ominously about the possibility of a schism in the church if the Vatican loosens doctrinal strictures against divorced (and remarried) lay people receiving the sacrament of Communion.
...
On Jan. 3, Robert P. George assured readers at First Things that they could safely ignore whatever the pope might say about climate change because his arguments would be based on contestable empirical claims about which Francis possesses no special expertise. Two days later, author Maureen Mullarkey wrote a blistering blog post, also at FT, in which she went much further — to condemned the pope as “an ideologue and a meddlesome egoist” who views “man as a parasite” and “sullies his office by using demagogic formulations to bully the populace into reflexive climate action with no more substantive guide than theologized propaganda.” (FT editor R.R. Reno disowned the Mullarkey post later in the week.)

Finally, on the same day that Mullarkey’s post appeared, Catholic columnist Steve Moore denounced Francis in Forbes, calling his public policy pronouncements on economics and the environment a “complete disaster” that show that he’s “allied himself with the far left and has embraced an ideology that would make people poorer and less free.”

thunderlips11 says

Which is why he's hated by Conservative Catholics. He's not monomaniacal about abortion 100% of the time. He actually talks about inequity, global warming, and poverty. Which makes him an anti-Pope to many

Sad, but true. Religion isn't very good on morality and the whole be your brother's keeper thing.

Dan8257 says: " So anyone left on this planet must be a butt-pillaging ballsweat demon."
Fell out of my chair laughing!

Good title too.

Well, the historical point of marriage was simply to protect a pregnant woman from being abandoned by a man. The deal was "this guy is responsible for the protection and support of this woman's forthcoming children" and "this woman pledges that the children this guy is supporting are really his."

It was not so much about love, and still is not in rural traditional societies. It's economic, providing mutual benefit to the husband, wife, and children though a contractual obligation. Heck, Jewish marriage still is literally a contract which both parties sign.

So who then is protected by gay marriage?

Not that I'm opposed. One of the arguments against gays has been that they live uncommitted lifestyles. If they want to publicly proclaim their commitment (and get the tax benefits!) then more power to them. But we are fucking with some subtle social structures that brought us down to the present day, and I think religious conservatives are afraid of potential unforeseen consequences in the long term.

the historical point

Life would be considerably simpler if everything had exactly one cause and one intended effect, or "the point." In reality, many couples (including same sex couples) have been getting married and staying married for reasons that have nothing to do with forthcoming pregnancy. If preparing for pregnancy were "the point," then nobody would be allowed to get married if they can't get pregnant, and all marriages would sunset after the kids turn 18. Instead, people get married and stay married for a variety of reasons. Marriage existed for millenia before the Vatican attempted to hijack it and turn it into a religious monopoly, but at least I give credit to the Vatican for preserving some sense of history; many Baptists seem to imagine the world was created less than 10k years ago and that Adam and Eve were married by Jesus (and their kids rode around on dinosaurs as depicted in the creationist theme park). The Irish vote for marriage equality was very good news, but the Vatican ungraciously sees it only as a "defeat' because by voting contrary to Vatican instructions the Irish Catholics declared their political independence from the child molesters and laundry overseers who had been abusing the Irish for too long.

One of the arguments against gays....

It's actually an argument against men, who are statistically more likely to commit adultery than women, though both are capable of it. A British DNA study of a town found 10% of the children were not the children of their "fathers". But yes, so-called "conservatives" (not really) have tried to twist that into an argument against gays, which is a bit like saying black people shouldn't be allowed in stores because a disproportionate % might try to steal something. Actual conservatives would point to a CBO study showing marriage equality would reduce (slightly) the federal deficit and a studies showing a significant reduction in medical spending among gay men. (Contrary to common mythology, medical spending is not guaranteed always to increase. Sometimes it can be reduced, and with better health, e.g. by addressing the root causes of health problems instead of throwing money at medicating them and calling that "benefits".)

So who then is protected by gay marriage?

Many gay couples have children, the most recent numbers I saw were in the millions, and the 2010 Census reported percentages comparable to heterosexual couples, but additional protectees include the separation of church and state, and the equal protection of the laws. The separation of church and state is why the Vatican declared "defeat," i.e. the unmarried guys in dresses were accustomed to being able to dictate the laws of Ireland and now the Irish have declared independence.

I think Patrick is the only person who understands both sides of the argument.

FortWayne says

the only person who understands

The fact he said something you agree with does not make him "the only person who understands." I understand your side of the argument, and that you're wrong.

curious2 says

and all marriages would sunset after the kids turn 18.

Wait a minute! Why hasn't this genius idea ever come up for a vote?

All this drama for what - 2 percent of the population that are attracted to the same sex?

The luxury we have living in the West where this can be considered one of the most important issues facing humanity in the 21st Century!

Isn't the State's only interest in encouraging heterosexual marriage is for procreation of the species and future tax payers? If kids aren't involved, I don't need the State to certify my love for my spouse. I can make arrangements to leave my spouse with my wealth if I kick the bucket before them,

So if all things are equal in terms of wages, education and future prospects between 2 couples - does the State adopt a child to a heterosexual or gay couple?

socal2 says

All this drama for what - 2 percent of the population that are attracted to the opposite sex?

All that drama is created by conservative bigots. If our state simply treated homosexuals exactly the same as heterosexuals there would be no drama, no gay pride parades, no history of lynching gays, no history of imprisoning gays, and gay marriage would have been the law of the land since inception and no one would even be thinking of gay rights, gay marriage, or gay culture. It would be no big deal.

Conservatives are the ones who make all this drama, attention, and debate necessary. When stupid, ignorant people do stupid, ignorant things, the rest of society has to take up arms against the stupidity. I look forward to the day when equal rights for all is a reality and we can stop spending our time answering stupid objections to things like
- gays can't reproduce so why get married
- if gays can marry each other then can people marry dogs
- what about polygamy

These are the same stupid objections to interracial marriages. And they were stupid objections in the 1960s and they are stupid today. Stupidity does not have a half-life.

fuck it...the only way to deal with this is to ban sex for everybody.
from now on, if you get the urge, hop over to dans house and jerk off with the orangutan... *

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

All this drama for what - 2 percent of the population that are attracted to the opposite sex?

All that drama is created by conservative bigots. If our state simply treated homosexuals exactly the same as heterosexuals there would be no drama, no gay pride parades, no history of lynching gays, no history of imprisoning gays, and gay marriage would have been the law of the land since inception and no one would even be thinking of gay rights, gay marriage, or gay culture. It would be no big deal.

Dan8267 says

All that drama is created by conservative bigots.

Most conservatives hold the same view that Obama, Hillary and Democrats had on GAY MARRIAGE all of 2 minutes ago. So kindly fuck off on your bigotry charge cause it just makes you look screechy and dumb. Many thinking people can be tolerant of gays but also support traditional marriage without being a bigot.

https://www.aUkuEtcqzyA

As much as Gays and Progs think they can divorce procreation from marriage - it doesn't change basic biology and millenia of civilization. That is why you can't honestly answer the question I posed earlier as to whether it is better for children to be raised by straight or gay couples if all other things are equal.

socal2 says

As much as Gays and Progs think they can divorce procreation from marriage - it doesn't change basic biology and millenia of civilization. That is why you can't honestly answer the question I posed earlier as to whether it is better for children to be raised by straight or gay couples if all other things are equal.

How about arranged marriages? That's a whole lot more traditional than "Free Choice Marriage". Other things people weren't allowed to choose:

* Mixed religious marriages
* Mixed Class Marriages

In fact, mixed religious marriages were rare until about a half-century ago, all over the Western World inc. the USA

socal2 says

Many thinking people can be tolerant of gays but also support traditional marriage without being a bigot.

No it's impossible Dan and them said so.

They don't just want Gay marriages, they want to find the most religious people to refuse to bake them a cake so they sue the living pants off of them, and make a few bucks or gain some political feathers. Gay marriage is just a vehicle to force their disfunctional dystopian view on others. Probably has more to do with daddy didn't love them, more than they really give a good honest crank what you or I think about gay marriage. I just know damned well at the end of the day, these folks don't give a crap what anyone thinks.
But they are keen on legislating what we think.

thunderlips11 says

Other things people weren't allowed to choose:

* Mixed religious marriages

* Mixed Class Marriages

In fact, mixed religious marriages were rare until about a half-century ago, all over the Western World inc. the USA

I don't think the American government ever banned mixed religious or class marriages. It would certainly be news to my mixed religious marriage. One of our parents had issues for a little while, but the State never had an issue.

And Gays were never banned from marriage. They just needed to marry someone of the opposite sex.

CaptainShuddup says

They don't just want Gay marriages, they want to find the most religious people to refuse to bake them a cake so they sue the living pants off of them, and make a few bucks or gain some political feathers.

It's worse than that. Did you hear about the Canadian jewelers who gladly made wedding rings for a lesbian couple, but still hold the "bigoted" view about traditional marriage? Now the lesbians are all angry and demanding a refund for the rings because the jewelers hold the same view Obama and Hillary had 5 minutes ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/jewelry-store-sign-prompts-same-sex-couple-to-ask-for-refund-1.3077192

We will be MADE to care by the Totalitarian Progs.

anonymous says

It appears that is just what happened and in doing so became the foundation of the GOP and the Religious Right...

I'd rather have some gays in the GOP than all the rapists and pedophiles that are in the Democrat party. We can throw on killers if we count Ted Kennedy!

sbh says

Not drama......consideration......equal protection consideration.

There is tons of drama by a bunch of screechy drama queens desperate for any social issue to exploit because Obama's economic policies have failed.

sbh says

So much drama about less than one thousandth of a percent of the population of a non-US country. Who's sounding screechy and dumb now? Hmm?

There are more examples than that. People are getting sued and losing their businesses in the US for holding Obama and Hillary's 2012 views on gay marriage. This is the slippery slope that you Progs said could never happen.

There is no live and let live by the gay marriage supporters these days. They are the biggest bunch of sore winners I have ever seen and are likely going to overplay their hand. They better hope they don't identify the gay or trans-gendered gene and use it to screen for abortions. You will seed the Progs turn pro-life almost over night!

In the meantime, lets get back to dealing with another one of humanity's most pressing problems in getting rid of gender assignments all together! It is too "triggering" to have sex assigned bathrooms or any kind of gender norms.

SoftShell says

fuck it...the only way to deal with this is to ban sex for everybody.

We don't all want to live like CIC.

socal2 says

Most conservatives hold the same view that Obama, Hillary and Democrats had on GAY MARRIAGE all of 2 minutes ago.

We liberals have always been more advanced than Democrats or knock-dragging conservatives.

socal2 says

So kindly fuck off on your bigotry charge cause it just makes you look screechy and dumb.

Actually, that's exactly what you conservatives look like when you demonstrate your bigotry against gays and other minorities.

The only thing truthful in your posts is that the Democrats like Hilary and Obama are bandwagon jumpers now that support for gay rights has reached critical mass. This is no surprise as it's exactly what happened with civil rights for all races back in the 1960s.

However, to suggest that it's a wash because Democrats and Republicans are equally bad is utter bullshit. Republicans have outright opposed any progress on any social issue. They even backtrack on their alleged support of states rights when states started recognizing same-sex marriages.

And social conservatives, regardless of whether or not they are Republicans or vote, are simply moronic bigots as science has shown many times. Please feel free to challenge me on that. I love reposting all the evidence.

For the past 400 years, social conservatives have been on the wrong side of history. Every generation has shown that all previous generations of social conservatives have been out right evil in their ideas, their culture, and their behavior. From slavery to segregation to genocide to suppressing the female vote to lynching blacks and gays to using child labor in dangerous factories to shooting unarmed war protesters to rigging elections to gerrymandering voting districts to Jim Crow laws to starting wars on false pretenses to sabotaging the economy to revealing our undercover CIA agents and risking America getting nuked to performing lethal medical experiments on innocent civilians, conservatives have done it all.

If you conservatives want us to forget about all the evil you and your ancestors have done for the past 400 years, you need to stop doing that evil. In other words, you need to stop being conservatives. Until then, you get no respect and we liberals will point out your moral failings. You don't like history, stop repeating it.

anonymous says

socal2 says

"And Gays were never banned from marriage. They just needed to marry someone of the opposite sex.?"

It appears that is just what happened and in doing so became the foundation of the GOP and the Religious Right...

I've been looking at numbers to evaluate Dan's off-hand remark years ago that closet cases are half the GOP, and I think if you include their scared wives it's about right. In the 2014 midterm election, a total of around 80 million Americans voted, around half for the GOP, so that's a total of around 40 million GOP votes. Half the GOP vote total would be around 20 million voters, which is less than 10% of the total adult population. If you divide that equally into closet cases and scared wives, that's half the party. On PatNet, Forthood actually commented that he had needed government to tell him whether to choose a female spouse instead of a male, and he comments endlessly about his fear that his children will turn gay if they see even one gay couple because "monkey see = monkey do." (He knows the example of his own miserable marriage won't inspire them, and he dreads the day when they catch him at a truck stop toilet. I wonder if he would let them watch a documentary about coal miners, or anything on the evening "news".) Meanwhile, total voter turnout was less than 40%, because the Democrats campaigned on Obamneycare, which most Americans oppose, and the GOP campaigned on its Biblical closet case platform.

With so many newly minted multi-billionaires in search of ever greater trophies, I would really like to see a well funded independent party. Charles Koch ran against Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Ross Perot ran against Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but neither spent enough to compete with the major parties. If Citizens United tempts somebody to campaign personally or finance an electable candidate, some good might yet come of it.

socal2 says

As much as Gays and Progs think they can divorce procreation from marriage - it doesn't change basic biology and millenia of civilization.

The secular institute of marriage is not about procreation, dumb ass. Nor is it about millennia of history. If it were,

Marriage under American law is a legal arrangement that all of the following groups have the right to.
1. Infertile couples.
2. Elderly couples in which the woman is menopausal.
3. Young couples who do not ever want to have a child.

Same-sex marriages are no different. In fact, a gay couple can conceive children. Lesbians can use in vitro fertilization‎. Gay men can use surrogate mothers. In the not-so-distant future, it will be easy to combing the DNA of two eggs or two sperm so that both members of the same-sex couple can be biological parents. So your reproduction argument is utter bullshit and thinly veils your bigotry.

Only a conservative would say something so unbelievably stupid and contrary to so much of everyday life as "unless you can reproduce with your partner, you shouldn't have the right to marry him or her". What a fucking stupid statement!

And why should taxation, survivor benefits, health care, an tens of thousands of other rights be tied to the genders of a couple?

The bottom line is that any opposition to same-sex marriage is opposition to the 14th Amendment, and you have to be an Unamerican scumbag to oppose the 14th Amendment.

Dan8267 says

Same-sex marriages are no different. In fact, a gay couple can conceive children. Lesbians can use in vitro fertilization‎. Gay men can use surrogate mothers. In the not-so-distant future, it will be easy to combing the DNA of two eggs or two sperm so that both members of the same-sex couple can be biological parents. So your reproduction argument is utter bullshit and thinly veils your bigotry.

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean it is preferable. Like I keep asking and you are too chicken to answer, should the State adopt children to a gay or straight couple if all things are equal between the two couples?

Wasn't long ago when Progs were saying that "one loving mother with State assistance" is good enough to raise children without a father. Now look at the dramatic increase in income inequality and destruction of the African American family with all these single mothers living on welfare and a life of poverty with no fathers around.

Nice job Progs! Let's keep tinkering with the very foundation of civilization, pretending there are no physical and psychological differences between the sexes and see how much more we can fuck things up and blame it on evil Corporations!

CaptainShuddup says

socal2 says

Many thinking people can be tolerant of gays but also support traditional marriage without being a bigot.

No it's impossible Dan and them said so.

That's right because it's exactly like saying, "many thinking people can be tolerant of African Americans but still support segregation and bans on interracial marriages".

CaptainShuddup says

They don't just want Gay marriages, they want to find the most religious people to refuse to bake them a cake so they sue the living pants off of them, and make a few bucks or gain some political feathers.

If you have a business license and have a storefront in a commercial zoned area, your business does not get to discriminate against customers because of bigotry. There is no difference between a business that refuses to service gay people and one that refuses to service blacks. And it's been long established that you can't do that.

Land is ultimately community property. There is limited spaces for businesses. Any storefront or bar that takes up space in a community, by necessity, crowds out competitors. Furthermore, the competitive nature of business also crowds out alternatives. For these reasons, it was made illegal for a bar, bakery, or other business to refuse to give service to any minority (women, blacks, the Irish, Jews, or gays).

Are you conservatives actually arguing that businesses that require business licenses to operating in a city or town should be allowed to discriminate against any group they want to? Should they be allowed to say "No JEWS or NIGGERS allowed"? You are either arguing that or your being a hypocrite for not opposing the same bigotry against gays.

CaptainShuddup says

Probably has more to do with daddy didn't love them, more than they really give a good honest crank what you or I think about gay marriage.

Sounds like your projecting.

You want to know why we liberals are so adamant about accepting systemic state discrimination against gays? It's quite simple. We are true Americans who believe in the principles are nation was allegedly founded upon. The principle that all persons are created equal with certain inalienable rights including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just because you conservative scum do not believe in American principles, doesn't mean that the rest of us don't.

I don't need to have a vested interest in any group to want the people in that group to have equality under law. Any true American believes in complete and absolute equality under law. It's the single most defining characteristic of our society. All of American history has been a series of reforms that did away with inequality and privileges under law. And if conservatives were even slightly patriotic, in the truest sense of the word, they would be rallying along side liberals for equality for all.