Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Amanda Mrakovich on March 29, 2013 at 6:00pm

Nice link, very funny!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dale Headley on March 27, 2013 at 8:02pm

You might use Justice Kagan's tactic and ask your brother to specify just what those "political, sociological, scientific, and philosophical" reasons are.  For that matter, just what is the "spiritual reason"?  A respected lawyer could only sputter and blather in response to Kagan's question before admitting that he couldn't think of any reasons. Two California courts struck down Prop 8 for that same reason: none of the plaintiffs could come up with a single negative effect of gay marriage that they were willing to put forth, since it would have made them look like ignorant bigots.  Speaking of which, Maybe your brother should have been the one to argue before the Supreme Court.

And your brother speciously equates homosexuality with those things (infidelity, pornography, etc.) he professes being against without providing any rationale for making that moral equivalency.  

Incidentally, Rush Limbaugh is on his fourth childless marriage, which helps render the specious "procreation" argument N/A.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda Mrakovich on March 27, 2013 at 8:11pm

Edit:  Yeah that is an awesome idea. Thanks a lot.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda Mrakovich on March 27, 2013 at 8:34pm

He responded to the pictures by saying:

"Sam, that is funny. I still think that the Supreme Court will choose to not make a decision. We will see though.

I do not mind intelligent arguments in support of your ideas. However, Amanda, none of your posts have anything to do with my statement. I never said the Constitution says homosexual marriage is a sin. In fact, if you ask me, I do not think that in the United States that the state should recognize heterosexual marriage. As I said earlier, marriage is a spiritual issue at its core, certainly not political.

Your second post is just kind of humorus, but does not really have any point.

Your last post would take some time to debate, and I have no intention of carrying on such a long discussion here. Suffice to say that the post does not fully explain the texts cited, and it does not understand what happend. It also does not understand that just because something happened in the Bible, it does not mean that God wanted it to happen (endorsed it). Many things happened in Scripture that God did not endorse."

Oh, Sam is my husband and he posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-5_Nw0tFXE&feature=youtu.be and then some witty comment about watching the shit storm that is about to unfold.  And just FYI I posted (in order):

http://weknowawesome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/wonka-gay-marri...

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php?d=AQD2DygPEgtskqTl...

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php?d=AQBYZac48RfzHOBq...

(Props to kOrsan for all of those, thanks man)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kris feenstra on March 27, 2013 at 9:01pm

Is I said earlier, marriage is a spiritual issue at its core, certainly not political.

It is legal and financial at its core. Reducing it to a spiritual matter is like reducing cola to just the air bubbles and still trying to call it a drink.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Strega on March 27, 2013 at 9:49pm

I like that, Kris

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda Mrakovich on March 27, 2013 at 10:01pm

I agree with you for the most part.  But I would say that personally my marriage is at it's core based on the love my husband and I share (cheesy but true nonetheless). 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 27, 2013 at 10:43pm

You need to distinguish between marriage as the law views it and any other sense of the term. The law doesn't give a flying f*ck about cheesy lovey-doveyness. It doesn't even require that people actually love each other to get married. To the law, marriage is a contractual arrangement with a variety of implications involving tax liabilities, what happens in case of dissolution (division of property, guardianship of children), or the death of one of the marital partners.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kris feenstra on March 27, 2013 at 10:56pm

Here we have to make the distinction between how you define your personal relationships and what the institution of marriage is. The institution of marriage is, historically and presently, legal/ contractual at its foundation. It's totally cool that people decorate* it with other things, but that doesn't alter the fundamental nature of the institution, even in religious traditions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda Mrakovich on March 27, 2013 at 11:04pm

Yeah I suppose that you are both right. I guess I should have said personally I feel... XD in all seriousness, I get what you are saying and I agree.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 27, 2013 at 10:27pm

I'm not sure I agree with that simile, but the the courts would be going beyond their charter to consider ineffables like spirituality.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kOrsan on March 28, 2013 at 8:05am

So in short he didn't have anything to say.

"Marriage is spiritual" makes him sound like a child.

He might want to look up the history of marriage in different cultures.

Your last post would take some time to debate, and I have no intention of carrying on such a long discussion here.

Hah, admission of defeat. As I told you in the chat, the funny thing to do would be to just continue posting random goody shit that makes fun of his homophobic ass and not even respond to him. You're going the right way!

You could upload some of the pictures here.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page