Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Homosexuality is just as deviant and perverted, now, as it was when Portman was too busy to have a catch with his boy. That has not changed. The laws of nature have not changed.

this 'order66' character knows how easily a cock slips into a bum, right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1NVw7xnIMY4

Boehner told Raddatz that he could not envision a situation where his views would shift on same-sex marriage - even if one of his children came out as gay.

"Rob's a great friend and a long-time ally. And I appreciate that he's decided to change his views on this," Boehner said. "I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman…It's- it's what I grew up with. It's what I believe. It's what my church teaches me. And I can't imagine that position would ever change."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/charles-murrays-gay-marriage-surprise.html

chief phrenologist tells the right to give up on gay marriage and abortion

that fucking dude

Mayer misspelled Jonathan Rauch's name, surprisingly.

haha, stopped clock moment for real

But since then, Murray said, “we have acquired a number of gay and lesbian friends,” and to what he jokingly called his “dismay” as a “confident” social scientist, he learned he’d been wrong. He’d been especially influenced by the pro-gay-marriage arguments made by Jonathan Rausch, an openly gay writer for the National Journal and the Atlantic. Further, Murray said, he had discovered that the gay couples he knew with children were not just responsible parents; they were “excruciatingly responsible parents.”

'like jeez ease up a bit'

more reality-based than Ratzinger?

Argentina was on the verge of approving gay marriage, and the Roman Catholic Church was desperate to stop that from happening. It would lead tens of thousands of its followers in protest on the streets of Buenos Aires and publicly condemn the proposed law, a direct threat to church teaching, as the work of the devil.

But behind the scenes, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who led the public charge against the measure, spoke out in a heated meeting of bishops in 2010 and advocated a highly unorthodox solution: that the church in Argentina support the idea of civil unions for gay couples....

Faced with the near certain passage of the gay marriage bill, Cardinal Bergoglio offered the civil union compromise as the “lesser of two evils,” said Sergio Rubin, his authorized biographer. “He wagered on a position of greater dialogue with society.”

In the end, though, a majority of the bishops voted to overrule him, his only such loss in his six-year tenure as head of Argentina’s bishops’ conference. But throughout the contentious political debate, he acted as both the public face of the opposition to the law and as a bridge-builder, sometimes reaching out to his critics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/world/americas/pope-francis-old-colleagues-recall-pragmatic-streak.html

You'd think a bunch of young closeted right-wingers wouldn't have been so open about their needs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/politics/young-opponents-of-gay-marriage-remain-undaunted.html

“In redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what you’re doing is you’re excluding the norm of sexual complementarity,” said Mr. Anderson, the Heritage Foundation fellow. “Once you exclude that norm, the three other norms — which are monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency — become optional as well.”

this is like white-belt rhetorical judo. the three other norms aren't norms at all in any legal sense...but let's just pretend they are for a sec, because why not

because he has shit-all argument otherwise

I find it fascinating how all these people are like ten years younger than I am but look like they're already in their mid 40s

welcome to DC!

can't wait

for gay marriage to alfred, that is

:P

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/worldisnotenough/2013/03/25/anti-gay-forces-not-giving-up/

If your picture of heterosexual marriage is one where it basically serves the husband’s interests, where he is in charge and wife and children are his subordinates, and where controlling the wife’s sexual behavior is fundamental to it in a way that controlling the husband’s is not – and this is still the ruling picture in much of America (not to mention the rest of the world) – then same-sex marriage really is a threat, because it shows that marriage need not be a union of unequals and can be non-hierarchical.

i loved the onion article

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

oh and donna rouge's post in the gays thread:

i'll admit it's not a super-huge priority to *me* personally but it means a lot to people i love and i will be very happy to see both these things overturned because state-sponsored discrimination is some bullshit. otoh i would also like to live in a world where, say, the golden girls would get the same benefits my married pals (gay or otherwise) get. i don't think there's a huge gulf between supporting gays being able to marry *and* also being skeptical of marriage as an institutional thing. and i think there's a lot of pressing issues that gay marriage doesn't totally address and i don't want to see them get swept under the rug if GM does become the law of the land. and i think it's NAGL to shit on qu]eer people who do want to get married. looking over this big glarble of text i don't think any of these stances are especially egregiously contradictory but you know, large, multitiudes, etc.

that post confused me until I realized that what was meant was "adults sharing a living space as an analogous family unit" and not literally "the fictional characters of Dorothy, Blanche, Rose and Sophia and/or the actresses who portrayed these characters"

thinking maybe I should have eaten lunch

if only that onion article were not satire xxp

No worries: I had the same thought.

xpost to djp

I mean, I consider myself socially liberal but I do have to draw the line at extending tax benefits to people who are imaginary

what if they had imaginary children? end of civilisation imo

I'm a bad gay for laughing exactly twice during the last GG marathon.

why does this thread title mention alfred?

cuz he's a bad, bad gay

oic

cuz I'm taking proposals, boo

cuz we want to marry alfred duh

I'm a bad gay for laughing exactly twice during the last GG marathon.

You just need other equivalents, as we've discussed

Is Sex in the City actually just Golden Girls without the withere boobs?

mookie, 'cause he's a catch!

i think about the golden girls in relation to gay politics kind of a lot

went to my first gay marriage last night and it was pretty much as boring as your average marriage except there was a "turn off your cell phones" pre recorded voiceover at the start with some woman impersonating sophia vergara and kristen stewart

never made it through a Golden Girls ep

like every filthy offscreen Bea Arthur story I've heard tho

would rather watch Cliff and Claire.

why does this thread title mention alfred?

He has a condo, right?

"Why would a guy wanna marry a guy?"
"Security!!"

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTU0NjYxOTk2OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODM0NDQyNA@@._V1._SX640_SY427_.jpg

i think about the golden girls in relation to gay politics kind of a lot

― steaklife (donna rouge), Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:07 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

<3

JUSTICE SCALIA: When did it become unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage? Was it 1791? 1868?

TED OLSON: When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?

JUSTICE SCALIA: Don’t try to answer my question with your own question.

scalia, piece of shit until the end

You don't cook, Herr Doktor, and detest Richard Linklater. What can you offer me?

I like at least 7 of his films!

There's my subscription to mlb.tv.

You can put your socks by my Reagan bios.

Let's make lots of money.

alfred morbs union, oh we can dream

and create Stalin.

i imagine it being like if Nixon married Vidal