[quote='Minimalist' pid='543341' dateline='1384464401']
Judge in Hawaii invites xtians to go fuck themselves....figuratively.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/14...rriage-law

[quote]Circuit Court Judge Karl Sakamoto ruled today against same-sex marriage opponents and refused to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the state from granting marriage licenses to gay couples starting on Dec. 2.

After hearing arguments for about an hour, Sakamoto said that while the plaintiffs had standing to file their request for a TRO, the state Legislature has the power to define marriage in the state of Hawaii. He said regulating marriage was "long regarded as the province of the state.[/quote]


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08...43649.html

What is interesting about this article is that:

1. She is a Democrat
2. She is a Lesbian.


I thought only right-wing, bigoted, Christo-fascist homophobes opposed same sex "marriage".

(November 15, 2013 at 1:46 am)Lion IRC Wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08...43649.html

What is interesting about this article is that:

1. She is a Democrat
2. She is a Lesbian.


I thought only right-wing, bigoted, Christo-fascist homophobes opposed same sex "marriage".

What's even more interesting about this article is that you obviously didn't fucking read it.

Quote:It is not that Jordan is paradoxically against same-sex marriage, but rather that she doubts the law’s strength. “When you look at a measure, you have to consider, how do we make this the golden standard, as bulletproof as possible?” Jordan told Honolulu magazine.

Though she does not publicly adhere to a particular faith, Jordan took issue with the narrowness of the religious exemptions.

“I’m not here to protect the big churches or the little churches, I’m saying we can’t erode what’s currently out there. We don’t want to scratch at the religious protections at all, because if we don’t create a measure that’s bulletproof, or as close to bulletproof as possible, then the measure will go to the courts. And they will interpret it however that may be. A judge will make assumptions and make a ruling, and that will become the law of the land. So you really want us to create the legislation.”

She wants to make sure assholes like you have as little ground to stand on as possible when you inevitably fight the inevitable.

It seems to me that these are the main objections to same-sex marriage:

• Homosexuality is unnatural
  
• Marriage has always been between a man and a woman
  
• Homosexual unions can't produce natural offspring
  
• It destroys the sanctity of marriage
  
• It offends god
  

I'll try to answer each of these in turn.

Homosexuality is unnatural
Well this is just wrong, as this article demonstrates:

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

I'm not saying that if animals do something, then it must be ok. I'm saying that something cannot be unnatural if it repeatedly occurs within nature.

Even if it really was unnatural, it would still be a pathetic argument. Computers aren't natural. Motorised transport isn't natural. Would you refuse medical treatment because it isn't natural?

You know what else isn't natural? Marriage. When was the last time you saw a couple of swans swear mutual oaths of loyalty and fidelity in front of their friends and family? Did you see them ratify their oaths with a legally binding contract?

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman

Not true. They have been various examples of same-sex marriages throughout history. If nothing else, the fact that it was banned in the Codex Theodosianus in 312AD kinda implies that it was going on. Why ban something that isn't happening?

Even so, arguing against something on the basis of tradition is incredibly daft.

Female genital mutilation is a tradition, is that ok? What about the tradition in india in which babies are thrown off a 15m rooftop onto a bedsheet? Human sacrifice was traditional. Or are we only talking about traditions that we like? Because if that's the case, then being traditional really doesn't have anything to do with it.

Homosexual unions can't produce natural offspring

Neither can infertile heterosexual unions. Should we really ban sterile people from getting married? Should marriages be dissolved if a spouse becomes infertile? What about IVF treatment? Can that "validate" a union? It certainly isn't "natural".

What if a heterosexual couple are both fertile but decide not to have children, can they still get married?


It destroys the sanctity of marriage

What the hell is the "sanctity" of marriage anyway? It seems to imply some kind holy aspect to it. Well non-religious marriages exist, so it's got to be more than that. Why aren't anti-SSM people up in arms about divorces and annulments? Surely nothing is a more direct threat to the sanctity of a marriage that it's dissolution?

It offends god

So does eating shellfish. Who cares? God will forgive us anyway, right? Given the innumerable things that offend god, which we all do anyway, why focus on this in particular ?

---

I think Violet Lilly Blossom hit the nail on the head with the issue of legal benefits. Denying homosexual couples the legal rights that married couples benefit from is just plain discrimination, no matter how you try to justify it.

Quote: how do we make this the golden standard, as bulletproof as possible?” Jordan told Honolulu magazine.

She's wrong about that though.

Quote:Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.
Samuel Johnson

The jesus freaks thought they were covering themselves by passing these homophobic constitutional amendments. They weren't.

(November 15, 2013 at 10:23 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: It offends god

God didn't seem to have a problem with Christians coming to this country and wiping out the indigenous population, he didn't have a problem with them falsely accusing and then executing people for being witches, he didn't have a problem with Americans enslaving people with dark skin, he didn't have a problem with them treating women as inferior, 2nd-class humans for most of the country's existence, he doesn't have a problem with how Americans refuse to help the poor, but we should be worried about offending him by allowing gay marriage?

So god's a hypocritical cuntbucket. What else is new?

(November 14, 2013 at 5:32 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: I think you live in the wrong world pal, this is what I need to be tellin' ya, to stop acting out your homosexuality in public and requesting things such as marriage and parental rights.
And I do, go and live out your lifestyle inside your own four walls, inside your own little subculture, and inside your own clique of fairies.
Normal society does not want you.

Huh. Cos, like, up till now, you've been bemoaning the fact that, increasingly, "normal society" DOES want to embrace gays in all their glorious gayness.

Can't have it both ways, chum. Or can you bring yourself to accept that you do not represent "normal society" in the year 2013, but just a dwindling minority of pious prurient perverts obsessed with the sexual habits of complete strangers?

(November 15, 2013 at 12:06 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote:

(November 15, 2013 at 10:23 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: It offends god

God didn't seem to have a problem with Christians coming to this country and wiping out the indigenous population, he didn't have a problem with them falsely accusing and then executing people for being witches, he didn't have a problem with Americans enslaving people with dark skin, he didn't have a problem with them treating women as inferior, 2nd-class humans for most of the country's existence, he doesn't have a problem with how Americans refuse to help the poor, but we should be worried about offending him by allowing gay marriage?

I'm not sure god is a cunt but I'm pretty sure about his followers.

Quote:Not true. They have been various examples of same-sex marriages throughout history. If nothing else, the fact that it was banned in the Codex Theodosianus in 312AD kinda implies that it was going on. Why ban something that isn't happening?

Even so, arguing against something on the basis of tradition is incredibly daft.

Female genital mutilation is a tradition, is that ok? What about the tradition in india in which babies are thrown off a 15m rooftop onto a bedsheet? Human sacrifice was traditional. Or are we only talking about traditions that we like? Because if that's the case, then being traditional really doesn't have anything to do with it.

Yeah, from a few fringe examples, and I'd say that it was even uncommon and looked down upon in societies where homosexuality was rather "acceptable", or outright non-existent.
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Go to any place on earth, ask any of the 72 nations of the world, and every tribe on every island across the seven seas, and they will attest to this fact.

Quote:Homosexual unions can't produce natural offspring

Neither can infertile heterosexual unions. Should we really ban sterile people from getting married? Should marriages be dissolved if a spouse becomes infertile? What about IVF treatment? Can that "validate" a union? It certainly isn't "natural".

What if a heterosexual couple are both fertile but decide not to have children, can they still get married?

Infertile people are not infertile because they want it so. They are so because some misfortune has befallen them. Most of them usually discover their infertility after they get married and think about having children. However, these do not go against the fact that marriage is connected to the institution of family, hence the terms used for children born within and outside of the wedlock, marriage does matter, and its primary purpose is to provide the next generation with the family and family values it always espoused.

Quote:It destroys the sanctity of marriage

What the hell is the "sanctity" of marriage anyway? It seems to imply some kind holy aspect to it. Well non-religious marriages exist, so it's got to be more than that. Why aren't anti-SSM people up in arms about divorces and annulments? Surely nothing is a more direct threat to the sanctity of a marriage that it's dissolution?

The sanctity of marriage lies in its importance for society. Not in religion.
But I have seen from people that support this madness, to be quite devoid of any regard for anything, they hold nothing sacred, not society, nor traditions, nor what marriage actually means or represented for cultures since the time it was practiced.

(November 15, 2013 at 2:21 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm not sure god is a cunt but I'm pretty sure about his followers.

Regardless, any offense God might take over gay marriage is not a valid consideration, seeing as how the First Amendment is the law of the land and all. If you think God is going to be offended by gay marriage then take it up with your preacher or priest.

At any rate, why would God be offended by gay marriage? If, as Christians claim, he's offended by homosexuality, he would be offended by the act itself, not two people living together with all the legal benefits of marriage. And refusing all those legal benefits is not going to keep gay people from having gay sex.