Constitutionality of Banning Same-Sex Marriage | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)
works for polygamy and incest (1.00 / 4)

if you faggoty fuckers argued for a relaxed definition of "marriage" as granting various implicit rights and privileges to "partners" in a "consensual", "adult", and "secular" union, and you were really serious about this being about the exercise and expression of "love" between the people in that relationship and about the right to pursue happiness, raise a family, and provide mutual support through hardship and even through death, then

you faggoty fuckers would have no problem also supporting polygamy and incest as long as these are consensual, adult, secular relationships.

 

however, you faggoty fuckers seem to think that your faggotry is something quite special, and those polygamous family fuckers are disgusting perverts.

anytime someone argues for "gay marriage", the loony right brings out the "but it will also open the door to polygamy and incest" talking points (and "man on dog sex", but that is only santorum's personal masturbatory fantasy).

instead of the proper response to this canard being "but of course, we are also in favor of polygamy and incest and any other heretofore non-traditional type of consensual, adult, secular union, and it is all about rights and privileges in a free society", you faggoty fuckers are always scrambling to distance yourself from these other supposed "consequences" of the legalization of gay marriage.

 

until you actually walk the walk, and not just talk the talk, about respecting consensual, adult, secular human relationships, you faggoty fuckers do not deserve special rights in the legal system, and i am entirely in favor of legistatures overturning judicial rulings in support of "gay marriage".

 

back in 2000, algae gore lost the presidency by arguing for "narrow rights and privileges" (recount votes only in a small number of counties where i already have the lead, am expected to do well, and will most likely gain the few hundred votes i need to bridge the gap) instead of "broad rights and equal protection" (recount _all_ votes in _all_ counties in the state of florida without any bias towards specific electoral regions).

once the restricted recount failed to materialized the needed votes, all algae gore was left with was a shit-eating grin and lack of a moral leg to stand on in order to demand yet another recount.

 

you faggoty fuckers would do well to keep that in mind.  anytime you go down the path of speaking lofty principles of freedom and fairness, but arguing for narrow implementation through cherry-picked exclusion/inclusion, you (a) undermine your own supposed lofty principles, (b) expose yourselves as being hypocrities, (c) develop shit-eating grins in addition to your shit-fucking sexual practices, and (d) lose your battles (as you so richly deserve to).

by neo on 06/12/2009 02:02:36 AM EST

Man... The pinkyless wonder strikes again. (none / 0)

neo is really hilarious.  "faggoty fuckers" had me on the floor every time i read it.  He's so edgy.  Take that conventional wisdom!

Oh!  And "algae gore"!  HA!  Do you guys get it?  I mean, his name is Al, so he calls him Algae.  See?  God...  That's brilliant.  Where does he come up with this stuff!? 

I only wish he could have snuck in a reference to President "borat" and Vice President "bidet".  It's always hilarious when he does that.  I'm cracking up just thinking about it.

by Spencer on 06/12/2009 06:44:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
that and his arguement (none / 0)
is totally bogus.


by Chinese Democracy on 06/12/2009 09:15:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
wait... (none / 0)
you mean heteros don't have anal sex too?  That must have been CGI in all those porno movies...

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 06/12/2009 11:37:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Please stay on topic (none / 0)

Your argument did nothing to address what my blog was about. All you did was bring up the regular talking points and failed to prove banning same-sex marriage is constitutional.

As for your comments about us not supporting incest and polygamy, you do have a good point. Why should someone say that same-sex marriage is fine, but multiple marriage and incest marriage is not. Except for the fact that the state (and in this case it does go to the states) has good reason to ban incest, which is to stop the genetic defects that arise from incest. Also, some states do allow cousin marriage.

As for polygamy, I generally support it, but we have to first get same-sex marriage before we can tackle polygamy. We can't fight for all forms of marriage at one time. Like I briefly mentioned in my post, first we had to deal with interracial marriage, now we can deal with same-sex, and next could be polygamy.

Now, don't take what I say as meaning we will go for incestuous marriage, there are clear reasons for the state to stop that, and marriage to animals goes right against my personal definition of marriage.

My definition is marriage is between consensual, sentient adults who wish to become a single family. If the animal cannot pass a sentience test, it cannot get married, but if one clearly can, then it may.

As for your Al Gore comment, I agree that was wrong, but you are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing someone saying, "Let's recount these counties and not those," and the idea of, "Let's give this significantly large group the same rights as the majority of people." Essentially, using your analogy, we who support Same-Sex marriage are like Bush saying either recount the whole state (allow Same-Sex marriage) or don't count any of it (Make marriage as an institute completely illegal).

by DemonicBunny3po on 06/12/2009 02:19:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Constitutionality of Banning Same-Sex Marriage | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)