Tea Party motto: I don't want the gubbmint legislating MY personal life, when it should legislate personal lives of people who're different than me.
6/30/2011 3:43:16 AM
I believe the greater society has a right to protect itself
The Bill of Rights disagrees with you.
6/30/2011 4:51:40 AM
"No society has ever sanctioned “gay marriage”...."
Greeks, Romans, Chinese, etc. There have been several cultures through history that sanctioned same sex marriages.
6/30/2011 4:55:51 AM
Now, admittedly, same-gender marriages have, historically and cross-culturally, been pretty rare. Note: that's "rare", not "non-existent". The central cultures of the big imperial powers (yes, that included the hegemonic bits of Rome and most eras in China) have tended (again, not absolute) to see marriage as a way of producing heirs, extending family power, etc. -- so these tended to be heterosexual-only and fairly phallocratic. (Not, one should note, that procreation-only marriage necessarily corresponded to heterosexual-only social mores; we're talking about models of marriage, after all, which had everything to do with political and social power and hegemony and little or nothing to do with love, companionship, and personal commitment.)
Of course, if we talk about different-gender but same-sex marriage, that's been widespread enough to be quite unremarkable. Not all cultures agree on who fits into what gender, or even how many genders there are (generally between two and five); there are quite a number of models of marriage (some of which are much closer to our "two people commit to form a family together" than the "man gives his daughter to another man" phallocratic model) where the configurations include one or more versions of what would legally, in the U.S. be considered a "same-sex marriage".
6/30/2011 5:12:49 AM
"No society has ever sanctioned “gay marriage”"
Except for the large number that did.
6/30/2011 5:28:54 AM
Allowing people to be themselves, whether it's being left-handed or being homosexual, have not threatened the "fabric of a society based on the undisputed normality of heterosexuality" and right-handedness.
When we removed the disease/illegal stamp on homosexuality, homosexuals could live more normally and openly and didn't have to resort to short sexual encounters down at the docks (or similar), which slowed down the rate of the spreading of HIV. (Not realy this simple and straight-forward, surely, but it's partly true).
How is halting/slowing down the spreading of a lethal disease a threat to society? Marriages between one man and several women are not unheard of through-out the millennia.
A family can be one widowed man and his three daughters,
or two elderly sisters living together,
or two men who love each other and their son by one of the men and a lesbian friend,
or one man and one woman with no children but two cats (this is my family),
or one man, one woman, two daughters and two sons,
or a woman, a man and an orphaned nephew,
etc, etc, etc, in infinitum...
A family is simply a group of people living together, supporting each other (if all is well).
6/30/2011 5:38:27 AM
For the millionth time, nobody's forcing your kids to be gay. And you still have yet to show how two gay people getting married undermines heterosexual marriages & families.
And for a group which pretends to be all about liberty & freedom, it's funny how they want to make a lot of things illegal.
6/30/2011 6:17:44 AM
the keystone of society, the family.
When they say that, they actually mean "nuclear family," as opposed to the much more traditional "extended family."
As for "millennia?" The nuclear family is only a couple of centuries old at most; and there are even some who now consider, or at least strongly suspect, it to ultimately be a failed experiment whose net social benefit, relative to the extended family, is actually negative.
My own impression is that the nuclear family is only really viable, for the majority at least, in extremely affluent, prosperous, first-world economies (basically North America and Europe from the early 20th century onwards) - a certain degree of social democracy and welfare systems also help. It's always less efficient, and hence more expensive, to have individual accommodation and material support for smaller groups of people than larger ones. In past eras and societies, two or three generations of two or three genetically distant or entirely unconnected families might live under one roof (these different familes would still be considered one "household"), often plus servants as well depending upon income, because the sheer economies of scale and benefits of collectivisation meant that to move out and sustain a place on your own was only affordable if you were a person of extremely good independent means. Some might also argue that social cohesion itself is damaged by the drifting apart of living units into ever smaller pockets, who have less and less to do with each other and more and more walls between them.
But hey, it was "Tea Partiers" who wrote this, and stupefying ignorance of most of known history, for which they blithely substitute the baseless assumption that whatever did happen in the past must support whatever they believe in now, is one of their strongest distinguishing characteristics.
6/30/2011 6:23:10 AM
Oh ffs you are losing the hate war, get over it already.
You can be a douche and stand in the way of progress, being judged harshly in the future. Or you can get on the band wagon and be heralded as a good compassionate intellectual.......Oh I see your problem. Well, erm, this is awkward.
6/30/2011 6:30:45 AM
No society has ever sanctioned “gay marriage” because to do so would be to undermine the keystone of society, the family.
How? Does this moron understand that people will be gay whether they're married or not and that gay marriage doesn't mean more gay people?
6/30/2011 6:33:04 AM
Tea Party nuts (the Bachmann-Palin variety) have never given a hot shit about liberty, freedom, or any of the other high-minded ideals they like to spout off about. Rather, they couch their desire for far-right authoritarianism in such ideals. They're right-wing fascists to the bone.
6/30/2011 6:37:19 AM
For millennia marriage has been recognized solely as the union of a man and a woman.
wrong, try again
6/30/2011 7:00:42 AM
"It's traditional!" is a lousy argument. For millennia, owning slaves, using your wife as property and basing a person's worth on their race were the norm. Doesn't change the fact that all of those things are wrong.
And that's not even getting into the fact that, traditionally, marriage was one man plus multiple wives plus concubines...
6/30/2011 7:06:16 AM
Hint for gay marriage opponents: if you're in favor of "one man, one woman" you're tacitly in favor of screwing with the "traditional" definition of marriage to a degree.
6/30/2011 7:25:18 AM
Raised by Horses
Clearly, when the Tea Partiers picked the name for their quaint little group, they weren't thinking of the Boston Tea Party so much as the one from Alice in Wonderland.
6/30/2011 7:29:16 AM
Translation: Stop it! I like being a hysterical, ignorant, uninformed c**t and you gays are ruining it for me!
6/30/2011 7:39:51 AM
For millennia slavery has been recognized solely as the owning of one man by another. No society has ever sanctioned “abolition” because to do so would be to undermine the keystone of society, human bondage.
6/30/2011 7:41:32 AM
You do realize there are modern countries in existence right now that have legalized gay marriage right?
6/30/2011 7:51:59 AM
For millennia marriage has been recognized solely as the submission of a woman to a man. No society has ever sanctioned “gender equality” because to do so would be to undermine the keystone of society, the family.
6/30/2011 8:17:02 AM
Several Native American tribes recognized marital unions between people of the same gender.
As for one-man-one-woman marriages being solely recognized as valid, go tell that to Abraham (2 wives, 2 concubines) and King Solomon (700 wives and 300 concubines).
And Muslim cultures have always allowed a man to have up to four wives.....
Ignorance, thy name is the Tea Party!
6/30/2011 8:19:08 AM
There is no hope for the Tea Party.
If the GOP nominates Romney, however, the GOP might redeem themselves a little.
6/30/2011 8:40:05 AM
"No society has ever sanctioned “gay marriage”"
Buzz. Wrong. Disprovable statement about history in the second sentence. You make this too easy.
6/30/2011 8:48:28 AM
"because to do so would be to undermine the keystone of society, the family. "
In what way, exactly? Even if no homosexual couple ever had children, which is so far from true than it isn't even funny, the world wouldn't suffer a catastrophic population drop. Also, do I detect the "sexuality is chosen and sanctioning gay marriage will lead to there being more gay people" fallacy?
6/30/2011 8:51:54 AM
"I am pretty sure the “straight” citizens of Boston and elsewhere find it offensive to host a gay parade."
Speaking as a straighter-than-straight citizen of Boston, I am delighted and proud that Beantown hosts gay parades.
Fuck you fundie, and don't malign my awesome city.
6/30/2011 9:03:48 AM
Fundies Make Me Sick
"No society has ever sanctioned “gay marriage” because to do so would be to undermine the keystone of society, the family." - Greece, Rome, China, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, and Iceland disagree with you.
As for the rest of your drivel, it's invalid.
6/30/2011 9:06:11 AM