1 2 3
#255043
Doctor Whom
Am I the only one who thinks that Hurricane Katrina is not such a good analogy for conservatives to use? Also, if homosexual marriages will destroy your marriage, that doesn't say much for your marriage, does it?
6/26/2007 6:58:48 AM
#255044
Concerned Idiots of America. Just answer quick this question. If two consenting adults marry legally somewhere else and live their lives and they have their rights recognised as human beings they are(and this time there are not even kids involved), which voters are they silencing?, what's next?, Jewish and Germans who didn't believe in Hitler's rubbish were silencing German voters?. And by the way, in 1913, what was forbidden was recognising interfaith or interratial marriages, are they bad too?
6/26/2007 7:02:05 AM
#255045
szena
If the success of your marriage depends on denying rights to others, your marriage is a sham.
I love how fundies are casting this as "silencing voters," as if any time a piece of legislation is not brought to a popular vote the people are being deprived of their right to vote. Why aren't they whining about not being allowed to vote on all the other measures the legislature considers?
6/26/2007 7:03:20 AM
#255049
ArmandT
Sometime I wonder if the fundies are that fragile in their lives and marraiges that they have to scapegoat everything they're not.
The Katrina analogy isn't exactly the best idea. But then again Fundies praise Katrina as God's punishment.
6/26/2007 7:15:29 AM
#255051
Øyvind
[/i]'Am I the only one who thinks that Hurricane Katrina is not such a good analogy for conservatives to use?'[/i]
No, I was just thinking the same thing.
6/26/2007 7:19:53 AM
#255055
Calilasseia
So campaigning to repeat an unjust and discriminatory law qualifies as "silencing the voters", but beavering away to find quasi-legalistic devices to overturn the Establishment Clause, push God into schools, force "intelligent design" (i.e., religious creationism via the back door) onto the curriculum, and trample all over the reproductive rights of women who don't want some creepy fundies putting their bodies in religious shackles is somehow legitimate?
Nice world view you have there Matt. Perhaps if you took your blinkers off for a moment, you'd wake up and smell the roses, and
see why millions of people regard your world view as being roughly on a par with rabies in the desirability stakes.
Oh, does anyone else here find it ironic that anop-ed piece for
Concerned Women For America is written by a
man? If these women are so 'concerned', couldn't one of them have written the piece?
Oh I notice
this paragraph in the article ... this one deserves an FSTDT submission all of its own:
Originally posted by Matt Barber
Prior to Goodridge, the concept of a man "marrying" a man or a woman "marrying" a woman was widely and properly considered preposterous. However, with their decision in Goodridge, four of the court's seven social mad scientists have zapped artificial life into a cultural "gay-marriage" Frankenstein monster. And that radical and bizarre new concept has been terrorizing the countryside every since.
Oh look, the kind of hyperbolic hate rhetoric that is all too familiar a part of the fundie aetiology.
Later on we have this:
Originally posted by Matt Barber
If two people of the same sex must be allowed to "marry," then what of bisexuals? Don't they have a "right" to marry the persons of their choosing? Don't they have a "right" to marry both the man and the woman they love? What possible justification would there be for preventing polygamist marriages once the true definition of marriage is done away with?
Polygamy? If it's OK for Mormons, why not the rest of us? Don't notice you complaining about that in Utah ...
6/26/2007 7:26:26 AM
#255066
NonProphet
Calilasseia:
I love it when they throw polygamy in there. I always end up pointing them to the bit in the bible about Solomon.
Of course, I've noticed that a lot of the people who think gay marriage will "destroy the family and the sanctity of marriage" say the same thing about interracial marriages.
Birds of a feather, eh?
6/26/2007 7:44:47 AM
#255070
Darwin
Hurrican Katrina as an analogy, eh? You mean, that big-ass storm that whupped New Orleans but left the most 'sinful' parts of town relatively untouched? Why not use the San Francisco earthquake/fire of 1906, the one that burned down all the churches but left the whisky distillery in operation?
Man, these fundies are fucking stupid.
6/26/2007 7:50:56 AM
#255076
h2whoa
If the existence of gay marriages makes some people not want to be married heterosexually, then it's a safe bet that those people are gay.
6/26/2007 8:04:01 AM
#255081
Nekhbet
Matt, I think you make a lovely woman; I'll bet you can hardly wait to have the surgery. That being said; I just wanted to remind you that your article forgot to mention bestiality and marrying inanimate objects. I'm sure it was an oversight and will be corrected in your next article. After all we can't forget three parts of the big four ( Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Bestiality, and marrying inanimate objects) Would you like some Teflon spray for that slippery slope?
6/26/2007 8:11:03 AM
#255088
Prager
@Nekhbet: Most men are married to their TVs anyway, so why not just legalise it.
6/26/2007 8:30:52 AM
#255089
Garfield
Could somebody please explain to me, how gay-marriage is a thread to traditional families? I don't think it will have any effect on my kids, if our lesbian neighbors could get married?
I should join CWA - I'm a woman and I'm concerened - probably about the wrong things though ....
6/26/2007 8:34:46 AM
#255094
Buffalo
we can expect the "gay marriage" levy to break, flooding the countryside with Hurricane Katrina-like destruction to the marriage and family foundation upon which our society rests.
OMG TEH GHEYSTORM!
6/26/2007 8:44:40 AM
#255105
MK
"If the 1913 law is repealed and homosexual activists have success with like-minded judges, then we can expect the "gay marriage" levy to break, flooding the countryside with design sense and fabulosity of an unprecedented nature. "
Fixed in a major way.
6/26/2007 9:03:30 AM
#255111
Seamus D (New Orleans native)
Explain to me again exactly how same-sex marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage? Seems to me it is only a threat to conservatives' ability to openly hate others.
And yes, the Katrina analogy is inappropriate.
6/26/2007 9:10:18 AM
#255128
quantumbrewer
HIGHLY POLISHED MIRROR!
Fundies are trying to silence gays and gay sympathizers.
6/26/2007 9:50:36 AM
#255140
Osiris
How will homosexuals being married affect yours? Or anyone else's for that matter?
6/26/2007 10:20:28 AM
#255152
Laurel
Gawrsh, how DID I ever obtain a divorce? No state I've ever lived in permits gay marriages, and yet, and yet....
6/26/2007 10:31:18 AM
#255153
Laurel
...oh, and here's my obligatory "I live in Louisiana, so fuck you and your Katrina metaphors" post.
6/26/2007 10:32:21 AM
#255162
flipper
Does it bother anyone else here that the spokesMAN for "Concerned WOMEN for America" is a GUY named Matt? Kinda like most of the heads of anti-abortion groups are men!
6/26/2007 10:42:43 AM
#255165
Sophomore
OH NOES! IT'S TEH GHEY PLAUGE!!!!!11
6/26/2007 10:47:27 AM
#255181
MrsYoungie
I followed the link to the CWA site. Surprisingly there was a single article about children's nutrition. It stood out among all the anti-abortion, anti-gay articles as being something that actually might affect the lives of some women and therefore merit their "concern".
6/26/2007 11:13:08 AM
#255199
Berny
To those of us living in countries that have already legalized gay unions of one kind or another, the whole debate in the US seems childish.
As in Canada a couple of years ago, the only objections brought up against gay marriage are religious in nature. Try as they might to disguise their arguments and make them appear to be primarily social or legal, it all boils down to "the Babble says it's a sin so I'm against it".
6/26/2007 11:45:43 AM
#255207
The babble says its an 'abomination' not a sin. And it says screwing another man is an abomination, not marrying them.
Fundies are an abomination too, but they get to marry each other.
6/26/2007 11:56:52 AM
#255208
pooper725
It is the duty of the courts to silence voters when the voters are attempting to deny the rights of minorities.
And let the floodgates burst! Marriage is still marriage in Canada, and in The Netherlands... same sex marriages are not detrimental to opposite sex marriages in any way. They're just detrimental to some people's sensibilities.
6/26/2007 11:57:49 AM
1 2 3