Subman1, subsim.com

Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In Forums

Quote# 42214

[In a thread on Californian gay marriage]

And when it comes to homo's, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government?

-S

PS. And as said above in response to marriage has changed - NO IT HASN'T! [Happy smiley face]

Subman1, subsim.com 25 Comments [7/4/2008 9:55:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 0

WTF?! || meh

Username:
Comment:

Check here

#572136

SurfinSeaOtter

Pretty much....

7/4/2008 9:56:20 AM

#572139

...

Marriage is not the business of the government to interfere in. Therefore, the government should ban gay marriage.

7/4/2008 10:02:37 AM

#572149

Me again

Marriage is not the business of the government to interfere in. Therefore, the government should ban all marriage.

Odd how banning something doesn't count as interference for some idiots.

7/4/2008 10:16:10 AM

#572154

WallachIX

Homo's what?

7/4/2008 10:18:16 AM

#572181

redfergus

"And when it comes to hetero's, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government?"

No. Nuff said. And watch your apostrophe's. I mean apostrophes.

fergus

7/4/2008 10:37:45 AM

#572226

aaa

What?

7/4/2008 11:29:21 AM

#572230

Hertzyscowicz

Oh yes, because every lifestyle needs government sanction. Has the government sanctioned being a bigoted fuck? I don't think so.

7/4/2008 11:35:37 AM

#572248

DavidS

When dealing with any issue in a free democratic society the rights of the individual are to be protected unless there can be shown a compelling reason society would incur a detriment.

In the instance of same-sex marriage the has never been shown a detriment to society. I have heard slippery slopes, and rants on the sanctity of marriage (whatever the hell that means).

7/4/2008 12:02:53 PM

#572249

Katsuro

So by that logic no marriages of any kind should be legal under the state, even straight ones because then they're sanctioning that "lifestyle".

Edit: Damn, too late again. Everyone else said it better too.

7/4/2008 12:02:54 PM

#572273

Sheik yer Bouti

"And when it comes to homo's, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle."

No, it is not the state sanctioning a lifstyle.

We are talking about a couple having the right to marry.

If one couple (I am talking about consenting adults here)has the right then all couples have the right.

Guaranteeing equal rights IS the business of government.

7/4/2008 12:35:03 PM

#572283

Nightboomfer

Stock response for anti-gay statements:
Why aren't you picketing Captain D's? Leviticus states that Shellfish is unclean and an abomination.

7/4/2008 12:45:22 PM

#572329

Allegory for Jesus

So, allowing for equal rights is a "state sanctioning a lifestyle", which isn't allowed for some reason? Well, looks like we have to retroactively remove all civil rights progress, because we cannot sanction the lifestyle of interracial couples, and working women.

And, marriage has changed: from a contract between families that amounted to trading off children, to its current state as a contract between two people that love each other.

7/4/2008 1:41:26 PM

#572426

tmr

Yet, you want the state to sanction your god when it is not their business.

Hypocricy makes any argument you come up with irrelevant.

7/4/2008 2:57:21 PM

#572523

Mike

I wonder what this guy would say for blacks marrying whites or vice-versa.

7/4/2008 4:01:44 PM

#572626

CT

PS. And as said above in response to marriage has changed - NO IT HASN'T! [Happy smiley face]

Cool... so it's still a Jewish-only cermony marking the transferance of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband?

It isn't?? But you said it hadn't changed!!

7/4/2008 5:26:19 PM

#572655

apYrs

religion is the lifestyle choice.

Priests are lifestyle coaches.

If you're born in a Xian nation that's what you usually stay. If Muslim, the same. Short answer: a religion isn't something intrinsic to a person (as being gay is).

So why tax exceptions for purely religious reasons (as opposed to charity activities)?

7/4/2008 6:05:41 PM

#572665

Kiro

Hmmm... *gets out marker pen*

[i]

[In a thread on revoking universal atheism laws of the United States of Hypothetical]

And when it comes to allowing people to worship a God, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government?

-S[/i]

If it was Subman1's way of life being repressed, I'm sure he'd want that reversed prontissimo.

7/4/2008 6:12:19 PM

#572797

Ash

Marriage is a legal, financial and social contract between two consenting adults. A government therefore has no right to interfere with it, only provide a legal framework within which it is regulated.

I'd love to see one of those "OH NOED GHEY MARRIHAGE!" fundies actually explain what makes marriage so special in a way that is not based on their Big Book of Bedtime Stories.

7/4/2008 7:34:57 PM

#572862

Old Viking

And when it comes to homo's (sic) ...

When what comes to homos?

7/4/2008 8:17:51 PM

#572884

Pyroclasm

PS. And as said above in response to marriage has changed - NO IT HASN'T!

Right. So how are your wives?

7/4/2008 8:39:52 PM

#572970

crazyroper

So then marriages for noone

7/4/2008 9:45:33 PM

#573034

Nick

Why yes, now that you bring it up, yes, it *is* the place of government to protect civil rights.

7/4/2008 10:40:27 PM

#573075

GigaGuess

So...the state has no business in the lifestyles of the people, and as such should intervene directly, and disallow people from marrying. Lol whut?

7/4/2008 11:42:38 PM

#573151

protowhalepig

what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government?

well, seems to work with marriage.

you stupid fucking cunt

7/5/2008 1:06:42 AM

#573180

F

"Subman" - does that mean you're a bottom?

7/5/2008 3:03:16 AM