Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

the only people benefitting from this confusion are demogogues.

That wasn't what you were arguing to begin with. You were arguing that churches will be forced to marry gay people, and you were wrong about that. And now you've moved the goalposts to legal definitions. I think ceremonial marriage and civil unions *should* be separate matters, but that's a whole different argument. So for the time being while the two things remain entwined, I see no reason why gay people should be the only ones who have to get "civil unioned" while everyone else gets married.

I see you can't read very well.

I see you can't reason very well.

to repeat:

how can the state possibly legislate religion, it just seems completely stupid... if Catholics don't wanna marry gays, I don't see how there's any way the law can tell them they have to.

You were arguing that churches will be forced to marry gay people,

seriously I never said this, go back and read the thread.

You said: Make civil unions have the same exact legal standing as trad marriages and voila - problem solved, at least legally speaking. But if Catholics don't wanna marry gays, I don't see how there's any way the law can tell them they have to.

And through that passage, I came away with the idea that you don't seem to realize that a) Catholics will never have to marry gay people, whether gay marriage is legalized or not, and whether it is called marriage or not.

I'm sorry I snapped at you but maybe I used too many double negatives for you or something. The law can't make churches marry anybody, as my statement "I DON'T SEE HOW THE LAW CAN TELL THEM THEY HAVE TO" should make clear.

anyway hurray my point is illustrated that semantics have completely fucked any rational debate about this subject

o the irony

What I am trying to ask you is why do you think the law is ACTUALLY TRYING THIS? Or that this is actually a goal to ANYONE?

I mean, churches can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want even with regards to straight marriage, so I don't think this is part of anyone's mission.

I don't know, were you just stating the obvious in the worst possibly phrased way?

yes probably

What I don’t get is why marriage should be restricted to couples. Why should a merry gang of lifelong friends be deprived of the possibility of sealing their togetherness? For it’s scarcely about love. I love plenty of people, and it’s revolting that I should have to single them down to some “significant other.” Coupleism — the last form of acceptable repression?

Yeah, but think about how expensive dinner would be.

What I don’t get is why marriage should be restricted to couples.

cuz making it otherwise is a massive legal headache. the very concept of marriage "benefits" requires that those benefits not be conferred to anyone in any situation. sorry, some restrictions are necessary. besides, who wants to create a whole legal framework for polygamy, sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

polygamy also traditionally oppressive/beneficial to one gender at the expense of the other.

Threesomes are fun and all, but I wouldn't want to worry about a partner's sexual stability when I have to wait in line for the bathroom.

Hi everyone I can remember sleeping with steals covers, I should MULTIPLY that by some larger number and freeze to death completely??

Also fuck you, you people, a bed is not a burrito.

my friend used to babysit for a kid who would say "tuck me in LIKE A BURRITO"

I thought that said "fuck me like a burrito"

sorry

me too

Funniest possible things to say during moment of climax.

A very good thing -- but let's see what happens in November.

Of course, I can see people using this as a talking point:

One of the first couples to wed, the lead plaintiffs in San Francisco's lawsuit challenging marriage laws, has since separated and is no longer part of the case.

You mean gay couples can divorce like straight couples? You don't say!

I'm not optimistic about the amendment on the Florida constitution, up for voting in America.

Connecticut Supreme Court joins the party:

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hcu-gaymarriage-1010,0,7812756.story

Does that make you angry Morbs?

?

no. As long as the state is marrying people, it should be marrying everybody.

Need to bait the hook better next time.

bait yrself, Jersey hater

As long as the state is marrying people, it should be marrying everybody.

http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/wt/wt070226let_oscar_be_oscar/benigni-lg.jpg

yes, let's get Rev Moon to marry us all to Pinocchio.

I don't actually hate NJ. I just think it's cool that there's a character than looks like NJ.

i think gay marriage is bullshit--i think all marriage is bullshit. i was walking around christopher st this summer and some woman from fox news with a big camera wanted to interview me about the subject--i assume b/c i was the gayest person she could find in the village, but i declined.

it's a weird issue b/c i think it's so consumed the queer movement in the US that, at this point, if someone says theyre against gay marriage, it means they're homophobic. which made it hard to watch biden sidestep the question in the debate.

but in the end--why would i want to be part of your fucked up, heteronormative, historically misogynist tradition? so i can have my relationships okayed by straight people? whatevz.

I hope this doesn't wind up giving fuel to the McCain campaign, given that both tickets are against gay marriage anyway.

While I have some sympathy for the "all marriage is bullshit" argument, I think it's a bit short-sighted. I don't think it takes into account why people enter into marriages, which is not always for normative reasons. (And there is nothing at all heteronormative about gay marriage? Almost by definition? I mean the whole problem is that it's a queering of a text/ritual/concept, surely.)

i think that the reason gay marriage has become the center of the gay rights movement is that it seems totally safe to straight people. i.e. they can see it as "oh, gay people are just like us!" which then leads to real downwithit straight folks asking halfjokingly who "the man" is, ha ha. i don't really buy that it's queering anything.

seems to me that any legit reason people enter into marriages for (i.e. civil rights, immigration, etc) should be guaranteed to people whether or not theyre fucking anyone.

gays should go back to reminding us that they're not totally safe to straight people

I am using that post as evidence that when you die and your estate is getting divided, ptero

remove "that" from sentence

the second "that"

ABORT SNAPPY POINT ATTEMPT REPEAT ABORT

i dont have an estate b/c i am so RADICAL & QUEER

i float above your petty economics like a revolutionary fairy!!!

Face it, breeders. We're just not cool enough to hang with the queers.

i float above your petty economics like a revolutionary fairy!!!

No, just a powerless one...

as opposed to if i had the incredibly powerful right of marriage? o please, bless me with yr straight privileges!

take us to your magical land free from historically misogynist institutions

welcome to lesbian separatism my friend

you will feel weirdly at home here.