23
   

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

 
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 06:16 pm
@Lightwizard,
How about this definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage?
Quote:
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 07:34 pm
@Lightwizard,
Alright, stop right there! Gays and lesbians are one thing but I won't put up with, for even a second, painting and poetry gettin' hitched!
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 08:15 pm
@JTT,
Especially if it's painting and poetry that go together.

That's all the opposition of gay marriage want to do -- play their simpleminded semantics game to obfuscate and confuse. That's what judges are for -- to make clear that you can't make something against the law by using a clever, but flawed, manipulation of semantics. Of course, that leaves those gay friends I know and have known who start business that are partnerships or corporations where they are officers, making it just as contractual as a marriage fitting into the dictionary definition. Anybody know La Roche Laboratories? We do have to forgive naivety. Well, sometimes.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 09:03 pm
@Lightwizard,
What about paintings from MOBA (the Museum of Bad Art) and a bad poem from an arbitrary 90's bad poem site. Can there be a proper marriage?:
http://www.museumofbadart.org/images/p-pop-portrait-2.jpg
and this bad poem,
Quote:
Doh! Ray Mi
Doh! A sound made by Homer S.
Ray, a singer with the Kinks
My, with Lai, is in "Veet-Nam"
Fa goes with -La-La-La-La La-La La La.
Sow, a spread of grain on land.
Law, ignore at your own risk,
Tee, a shirt some wear in bed,
Now we're an octave above Doh!

from zimmie
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 10:12 am
@tsarstepan,
Laughing I can't quite see those going together. But, to each his own.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 10:28 am
It is ironic that the religiously irreverent use the bible to deny homosexuals the right to marry where no where in the bible once is a marriage ceremony detailed on how it was to be performed... There is a mention of a canopy which no one really knows how that fits into marriage and also that a wife is a crown to her husband but few marriages depict a wife crowning her husband during the ceremony. Other than that there is zilch. If God felt that the marriage ceremony was so sacred a rite then why did God forget to include it in the umpteen pages of the Holy bible?
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 10:42 am
Comparing to homosexuals and their own sacred love to odd abstract art is just another masked insult from below the belt.
Lightwizard
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 11:08 am
@RexRed,
It's all ritual cooked up by those companies who profit from weddings. They're chomping at the bit for gay marriage to get passed in the states they operate in.

As to bad art and poetry, I can post much worse and, the whole concept opens itself up to ridiculous metaphors or analogies.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 06:33 pm
@blatham,
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/268593/march-22-2010/on-topic--in-the-news---gay-marriage

Okay it's a rehash of pearls of wisdom from past episodes.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 06:16 pm
@RexRed,
There are several mentionings of marriage in the Bible.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 06:18 pm
@RexRed,
Quote:
Comparing to homosexuals and their own sacred love to odd abstract art is just another masked insult from below the belt.
I thought it was an attempt to get back up above the belt. As Oscar Wilde said, we all live in the gutter. Just some of us are looking at the stars.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 06:38 pm
@RexRed,
Quote:
but few marriages depict a wife crowning her husband during the ceremony.


No, that comes after.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 01:34 am
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/3b3f1

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/t/3b3f1.jpg
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 01:35 am
What the f@ck is up with this image posting. Can anyone else see anything, 'cause I can't see ****.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 06:58 am
So, why is McGentrix wringing out this old thread you ask? I once felt that when gay marriage was accepted that people that were opposed to gay marriage would be forced to accept it. My biggest fear was the eventual lawsuits brought against religious institutions forcing them to marry gay couples.

Reading the news this morning I found this tidbit NM Supreme Court Finds Refusing to Photograph Gay Wedding Illegal...

This was the one thing that I found unacceptable with gay marriage and look, here it is already. A private company being forced by the state to go against their beliefs. This is how the slope starts...
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 08:44 am
@McGentrix,
A wedding photographer is a religious institution? Who knew?
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 09:21 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

A wedding photographer is a religious institution? Who knew?


Really Joe? Shirley your reading skills are better then that.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 09:36 am
@McGentrix,
My reading skills are fine. Here's what you wrote:

"My biggest fear was the eventual lawsuits brought against religious institutions forcing them to marry gay couples."

"This was the one thing that I found unacceptable with gay marriage and look, here it is already."

So you feared that religious institutions would be forced to perform gay weddings, and look! Here's a wedding photographer who has to take photos of a gay wedding. Yeah, those are exactly the same! Your fears were entirely justified!
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 09:39 am
@McGentrix,
The same arguments were made against serving black people fifty years ago.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 10:33 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
A private company being forced by the state to go against their beliefs. This is how the slope starts...

It's not just a private company, it's a public accommodation. I suppose the photographers might have argued that they're just random freelancers who could take any job they wanted and didn't want this particular job. But they didn't.

New Mexico's Supreme Court wrote:
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s holding that Elane Photography was a public accommodation under Section 28-1-2(H), Elane Photography, 2012-NMCA-086, ¶ 18, and Elane Photography did not challenge that holding in this appeal. l. Accordingly, Elane Photography waived its right to challenge that conclusion as a matter of New Mexico law.

Source (PDF) --- the citation is on page 6.

By choosing their role as a public accomodation, the photographers have waived the option of discriminating against potential customers. And with sexual orientation being one of the categories that the New Mexico Human Rights Act protects against discrimination, they can't reject same-sex couples, just as they couldn't reject mixed-race couples.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/22/2024 at 09:19:46