On the subject of gay marriage

Classified, Top Secret, Burn After Reading

Moderators: pablo banquo, Gobo, Bag of Ass, SporkAndrew

User avatar
Lobstrosity
Scientific American
Posts: 5212
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:38 pm
Location: San Diego, California

On the subject of gay marriage

Postby Lobstrosity » Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:44 pm

I received a funny email today that I thought I would share. If this leads to serious discussion about gay marriage and related proposed constitutional bans, that's fine. If not, hopefully you'll at least get a laugh out of this. I've looked into it and as far as I can tell this is real:


A Satirical Lambasting to Gladden your Heart (not about the Presidential
race)
M. Dennis Moore, whoever he is, is my hero.

A little background: a coalition of Conservative Christians in Oregon,
riled up by the "activist judges" who have dared to respect the rights
of gays in this state and challenge the state laws on marriage, have
gotten a measure on the ballot to amend the Oregon constitution to
define marriage as "One man, one woman" (yes, just like the federal
amendment). Sadly, the measure has a lot of support and will probably
pass. But, I'm glad to say, its opponents will not go down with a
whimper.

My Voter's Pamphlet arrived today. I'd like to share with you (and I had
to type these in by hand -- I couldn't find an electronic copy) the
FIRST THREE "Arguments in Favor" listed in the pamphlet, as well as the
next-to-last "Argument in Favor" -- all four submitted, at $500 a pop,
by one M. Dennis Moore.

Rarely have the pompously righteous been so righteously, and publicly,
skewered.
Read and enjoy!





Argument in Favor #1



CULTURE WAR!


Traditional values are under attack, and sexual perverts are attempting
to strain the definition of marriage far beyond what God has ordained.
The Word of the Lord must be legislated as Oregon public policy.

In the Holy Bible, Saint Paul says that Christians should remain single
and abstain from sex. The New Testament says that people should get
married only if they are too weak-willed to abstain from sex:

"It is well for a man not to touch a woman.... It is well ... to remain
single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should
marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. " (I
Corinthians 7:1, 8-9)

Marriage is not sacred. Marriage is for wimps and sissies!

Oregon public policy should define marriage in accordance with divinely
inspired Scripture. Therefore, marriage licenses should be granted only
to those persons who have been certified by professional psychiatric
examination to be too weak-willed to abstain from sex.

Oh, by the way, although Jesus never said a single word condemning
homosexuality, if heterosexuals can't get married, homosexuals shouldn't
be allowed to marry either -- well, unless they're too weak-willed to
abstain. Sissies!

The sissy institution of marriage must not be perverted by sinners who
are capable of abstaining! The sacred union of church and state must
prohibit the immoral union of men and women capable of the discipline of
sexual abstinence. We are not saved by either faith or good works. We
are saved by religious-right legislation!

Freedom of religion and equal treatment under law is simply the special
right to sin, because our tradition is the one and only truth! And our
tradition (that is, our personal moral opinions) should become law.


AGREE WITH US OR BURN IN HELL!


(This information furnished by M. Dennis Moore, Traditional Prejudices
Coalition.)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Argument in Favor #2



MARRIAGE IS SACRED!


The Bible says that marriage is for procreation. God made Adam and Eve,
and Adam and Eve made Cain and Abel, not an empty nest.

Marriage is for procreation. If you're not pro-Creation, you're
anti-God. And once a marriage has been solemnized, sex is serious
business. The solemnity of sex must not be abused for sinful pleasures.
Sex is for procreation, not recreation. And marriage is for breeding
purposes.

Therefore, it should be Oregon public policy that

* Homosexuals may not marry.
* Infertile persons may not marry.
* Men with vasectomies may not marry.
* Women with hysterectomies may not marry.
* Post-menopausal women may not marry.
* Persons planning to use birth control may not marry.
* Non-virgins may not marry (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).
* Inter-racial couples may not marry (Deuteronomy 7:3).

And couples who fail to conceive within two years ought to have their
marriage licenses revoked.

Additionally, the Bible says that

* Divorced persons may not marry (Luke 16:18).
* And if a man dies without leaving a male heir, it is his brother's
responsibility to impregnate the widow (Genesis 38:6-10). If he refuses,
he shall be fined one shoe (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

This is the sacred word of the Lord, steadfast and unchanging.

Traditional morality must become Oregon public policy. All of it. And
the older the tradition, the better. The separation of church and state
be damned. In order to protect the sanctity of marriage and the sacred
institution of heterosexual procreation, unequal treatment and
discrimination must be legislated consistently against all persons who
cannot or will not breed as God intended. It is God's will that we
multiply and fill the Earth and finally subdue it when the population
explosion self-implodes. Praise God!

Love is not good enough a reason to marry, because marriage is only for


HETEROSEXUALBREEDING.COM


This information furnished by M. Dennis Moore, defense of Heterosexual
Breeding Coalition


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Argument in Favor #3



THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY IS UNDER ATTACK!


Frightening new unprecedented social changes are threatening old
traditional values And these attacks on tradition have been escalating
-- for millennia!

First there was Original Sin when Eve disobeyed God! Then the Flood!
Then Abraham abandoned the traditional practice of human sacrifice! Then
Jews instituted the modern covenant of circumcision! Then Moses brought
down from Mount Sinai a bunch of new-fangled Laws on stone tables! And
later Jesus abolished them and preached instead the radical new Golden
Rule!

Polygamy fell out of favor! Women were no longer mere pieces of property
belonging to men! Next these uppity women demanded the right to vote!
Families could no longer own slaves! Prohibition saved the family from
destruction by Demon Rum! The nineteenth-century extended families on
American farms were destroyed by the 1950s social engineering of the
"Leave it to Beaver" suburban cookie-cutter nuclear families! Blacks
refused to ride in the back of the bus! Women demanded equal pay for
equal work! Single parents demanded respect! Gays and lesbians demanded
an end to hatred and oppression! Flower children protested traditional
mass-murder warfare and genocide! Divorce skyrocketed! The silence
surrounding child abuse was broken!

Frightening social changes continued! And then the religious right began
a righteous backlash! First they accused gays and lesbians of being
promiscuous! And when this failed, they began accusing them of having
long-term committed monogamous relationships and wanting to get married!

Where will it all end? After 6,000-some years of frightening attacks on
old traditional values, will history never cease to unfold? Will God
never stop throwing all of these radical social changes at us?

My friends, there is a simple answer. All you have to do is


VOTE TO TURN THE CLOCK BACK!


It's really that simple!

Now, which one of these radical social changes will this measure turn
the clock back to? Oh, come on, let's just


LEAVE IT TO BEAVER!


(This information furnished by M. Dennis Moore, the Beaver State Defense
of Beaver Coalition.)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Argument in Favor #30



LET'S VOTE!


The recent OCA signature drive for the "Divine Sovereignty Life
Amendment", if successful, would have given Oregonians the extraordinary
opportunity to vote on the existence of God, yes or no. Religious dogma
would have been decided democratically by popular vote -- essentially
creating an official state religion with GOD ALMIGHTY enshrined in the
Constitution as

Oregon State Deity!

Although this initiative drive failed, the "Christian" Coalition has now
created a Commandment Amendment to the Constitution! Measure 36 ordains
us to

VOTE ON THE THEOLOGICAL BELIEF

of whether churches, synagogues, and temples "shalt not" be permitted to
marry gays and lesbians.

And this election thus establishes the glorious precedent for democratic
electioneering on ALL of the


Official Oregon State Dogma!

COMING SOON
TO A THEOLOGY BALLOT NEAR YOU:


* Shall churches synagogues, and temples be permitted to marry divorced
persons (Luke 16:18)? Let's vote!
* Shall baptism be by sprinkling, pouring, or dipping? Let's vote!
* Shall the Lord's Prayer be translated "forgive us our debts" or
"forgive us our trespasses"? Let's vote!
* Shall adulterers be stoned to death (Leviticus 20:10)? Let's vote!
* Shall obnoxious religious-right hypocrites be allowed to marry? Hell
no! Let's vote!
* How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Hey, let's just vote!

This is democracy! Religious beliefs belong on the ballot, and winning
beliefs become public policy in the Constitutional Catechism! Minority
adherents, straight and gay, should have the statemanship to accept that
religious freedom does not protect losing beliefs in a theological
election.

Your special right to practice your moral beliefs (including marriage)
is subject to the whims of popular vote!

It's not discrimination, it's electoral theology.

In Oregon, democratic dogma is inspired by initiative and referendum --
in the

Holy Marriage
of the
One Official Oregon Church and State!

VOTE FOR OREGON:
State beaches, the bottle bill, land-use planning, and now
THE OREGON DOGMA!

www.oregondogma.org


(This information furnished by M. Dennis Moore, God for Oregon Deity-PAC
(GOD-PAC) and Family Alliance of God)

.
I HAVE CHORTLES!
Posts: 10842
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: The Vietnamese Ghetto

Postby . » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:27 am

You know, recently, my brother was saying that gay marriages just don't work out. I pointed out that he's about to divorce his second wife and that gays should have every right to be just as miserable as he was. See, it was funny in my head, but not so much when it was spoken.
I feel bad, but I don't, you know.
I'm also trying to figure out what gay marriages he is using to base his conclusion on.

User avatar
Lobstrosity
Scientific American
Posts: 5212
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:38 pm
Location: San Diego, California

Postby Lobstrosity » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:36 am

It sounds funny to me, too, but then again he's not related to me. It seems to me that he deserves it if he's willing to make a comment as ridiculous as that. How does he know that gay marriages don't work? Maybe it's the lack of an actual institution of marriage for gay couples that impacts the longevity of their relationships? And exactly what studies has he done/seen on heterosexual vs homosexual "divorce" rates? It's not like heterosexuals are exemplars of monogamy.

.
I HAVE CHORTLES!
Posts: 10842
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: The Vietnamese Ghetto

Postby . » Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:03 am

I think I'm probably the only one he could compare non-heterosexual relationships on and my last one lasted longer than his first marriage, which baffles me. I could understand if he was against marriage in general, based on the divorce rate in our family alone, but he's perfectly willing to keep looking for people to marry, have children with, and divorce.
He's very proud that he is married and has children, even is he is miserable.
He "credits" God for everything he has.

On a slight tangent (and as I complain to Gobi all the time), the women and relationships they show on The L Word (the lesbian show on Showtime) anger me. Every woman on there sleeps with any other woman they feel like. Single, married, in a relationship, doesn't matter. I get some people are not monogamous, but I also know that some people are, and it would be nice if they showed one couple that was monogamous. I'm not even saying monogamy should be the normal on shows, but it would be nice for it to be represented.

User avatar
Square721BT
Doom Cock
Posts: 6765
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 7:23 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby Square721BT » Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:18 pm

Woo! Go people who are against marriage in general!

User avatar
Too-Much-Coffee Mistress
Old Maid
Posts: 6045
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:52 am

Postby Too-Much-Coffee Mistress » Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:52 pm

. wrote:On a slight tangent (and as I complain to Gobi all the time), the women and relationships they show on The L Word (the lesbian show on Showtime) anger me. Every woman on there sleeps with any other woman they feel like. Single, married, in a relationship, doesn't matter. I get some people are not monogamous, but I also know that some people are, and it would be nice if they showed one couple that was monogamous. I'm not even saying monogamy should be the normal on shows, but it would be nice for it to be represented.


It'd also be nice if all the women on the show weren't disporportionately attractive. Even the supposedly scuzzy one looks like she just stepped off of a runway and went shopping in the Avril Lavigne catalog...
"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
Gobo
drum commie
Posts: 5590
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 6:14 am
Location: Worries for another day
Contact:

Postby Gobo » Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:24 pm

Unattractive people featured prominently on television? Never going to happen.

Gay, Straight, whatever... if you want to get married and can find someone who will do so be it a priest, a judge, a captain of a boat, whatever... then I don't see a problem with it.

I'm indifferent to marriage myself... I don't see much of a point, if you love someone and want to spend the rest of your life with them then why do you need to go through a major ceremony for it? Just spend your damned lives together.

But love is love... I don't care if it's between two men, two women, 3 men and a woman, 3 women and a man... if you and however many other people of whatever gender want to enter into a marriage together, more power to you, and there is no fucking way anyone should be able to tell you otherwise.

User avatar
Bag of Ass
Ninth Horrid Scar
Posts: 17607
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: New House

Postby Bag of Ass » Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:12 pm

Gobo wrote:I'm indifferent to marriage myself... I don't see much of a point, if you love someone and want to spend the rest of your life with them then why do you need to go through a major ceremony for it? Just spend your damned lives together.

Tax breaks.

User avatar
Gobo
drum commie
Posts: 5590
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 6:14 am
Location: Worries for another day
Contact:

Postby Gobo » Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:23 pm

Maybe I'm just so used to common law marriages which amount to the same thing... I think we're either the capital of common law marriages in the world... or top 2-3 here in Quebec...

User avatar
Square721BT
Doom Cock
Posts: 6765
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 7:23 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby Square721BT » Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:02 pm

We no longer have common law in Wisconsin, that changed last year. I'm told that very few states in the Union do. I'm not opposed to that, because I think getting tax breaks for being married is really fucking stupid. There's no rationale to that at all. It'd be nice if they'd remove the tax breaks for being legally married, but it'll never happen.

User avatar
Rob
Oh yes.
Posts: 6715
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Nantwich, Cheshire, UK
Contact:

Postby Rob » Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:09 pm

Damn right, Square.

There should be tax breaks in the UK for offing old people; Harold Shipman wasn't a misanthrope, he was single-handedly trying to save the welfare state, and the national social security pension in particular.

Over here, there is a married person's allowance. How fucking silly. It's like saying, "okay, we accept that the fundamental Christian teaching of being married is somewhat outdated and largely flawed, so in an attempt to make apathetic couples get married and retain some mindless race-memory of 'decency'. we'll give you extra loot if you tie the knot".

How quaint.

How dumb.

CLASS-WAR!
See"...Infrequent, sporadic, frustrating, occasionally going in the wrong direction..."
read the continuing adventures of the world's most useless boring bastard over at LJ - now somewhat less continued!

User avatar
Square721BT
Doom Cock
Posts: 6765
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 7:23 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby Square721BT » Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:20 am

HAHA!

1337 13w7.

User avatar
dogmeat
Goat In!
Posts: 5094
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:52 pm
Location: Blazingsmoke, Hants
Contact:

Postby dogmeat » Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:58 pm

My sister had a wonderful gay marriage here, not legally binding, but the happiest day of her life. As long as she's happy, so am I. :)

.
I HAVE CHORTLES!
Posts: 10842
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: The Vietnamese Ghetto

Postby . » Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:38 am

I really don't need marriage. For me, it's all about finding someone I can wake next to without wanting to suffocate them in their sleep.

User avatar
Space Monkey
Citadel Vet
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 8:18 am
Location: Okazaki, Jay pan

Postby Space Monkey » Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:47 am

. wrote:I really don't need marriage. For me, it's all about finding someone I can wake next to without wanting to suffocate them in their sleep.


That's... beautiful.
straight to video

User avatar
Bag of Ass
Ninth Horrid Scar
Posts: 17607
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: New House

Postby Bag of Ass » Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:49 am

. wrote:I really don't need marriage. For me, it's all about finding someone I can wake next to without wanting to suffocate them in their sleep.

How you doin

User avatar
Square721BT
Doom Cock
Posts: 6765
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 7:23 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby Square721BT » Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:49 pm

I breathe through a tube.

User avatar
Bag of Ass
Ninth Horrid Scar
Posts: 17607
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: New House

Postby Bag of Ass » Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:57 pm

The windpipe is a tube.

User avatar
Square721BT
Doom Cock
Posts: 6765
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 7:23 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby Square721BT » Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:35 pm

So's the colon, what's your point?

.
I HAVE CHORTLES!
Posts: 10842
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: The Vietnamese Ghetto

Postby . » Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:54 pm

Too-Much-Coffee Mistress wrote:It'd also be nice if all the women on the show weren't disporportionately attractive.

You know, I understand all these women are your typical attractive woman, but I don't find any of them very attractive. That is, except Candace, the carpenter. Good lord.
And as shallow as I may sound, I wouldn't really want to see ugly, fat people having sex. I could follow along their relationships just fine, but would really want the clothes to stay on.
Mmm, Candace. But speaking of her, if they make her love obsessed instead of being in it for sex, I shall boycott! I want to see her having hot sex, not being dumped. Sex sex sex. Although please, stay remotely dressed/covered. I don't want to see your goodies.

And Square, if you breathe through your colon, I would probably have to smother you just out of principle.


Return to “Deep Throats”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest